TrueBlue4ever

But the Boogaloo Boys are not in fact alt-right. They are in fact extreme left wing. At least that’s the new spin today from the right wing on Twitter is. Which is funny because up until today they said the Boogaloo Boys had nothing to do with the riots. You’d think if they were left wing all this time the right would have jumped on it rather than deny their presence there. Confusing to me..........

I can agree with that, but what we are all being subjected to from those two now is not that at all.

Maybe it’s time for the 2 of you to take this Kenney skirmish to the private messaging board. Not sure if the current state of Alberta politics resonates with many on this board here in Manitoba, but when the conversation devolves into name-calling over how each of you personally voted, and words like “stupid”, “lazy” and “gullible” get thrown around by both sides and the debate becomes a personal attack, Then IMO time to take it outside and get off the main board for your pissing contest. If I’m alone in my belief, then I apologize, I just don’t have moderator ban hammer powers.

I thought the moderator did OK. The mute button was only used for the opening 2 minutes, which may not have been the best use to avoid any interruptions later on, but allowed for some typical “debate rebuttal” To happen. And misuse of the mute is not the moderator’s fault. Her worst failing was allowing repeated “can I respond” instead of just saying “no we’re moving on”. She could have steered back to the original question a bit more when both candidates danced around an answer.

Final bingo tally by my count. Checks embedded in original post.

So, debate bingo: 3 cards, one Trump, one Biden, one moderator Trump - 1. “You’ve never seen/heard“ or “no one’s ever done anything like this ever” - CHECK 2. Greatest economy ever - CHECK 3. refers to COVID as China flu, Wuhan virus or some other foreign label - CHECK (plague from China) 4. The phrase “sleepy Joe“ or “cognitive decline” (nope) 5. “Most corrupt“ politician or family in reference to Biden - almost CHECK (left out the “most”) 6. Hillary - CHECK 7. Obama (pick a random bonus square if he drops in the middle name Hussein somewhere) - CHECK (no bonus) 8. Antifa (nope) 9. Protect the suburbs (nope) 10. Radical left (I debated adding a reference to “the squad”, which he did do, but no to the specific phrase) 11. Rioters, looters, burning, and Democrat run cities all in the same single answer. - close, but no 12. Rigged election (no) 13. Hunter Biden e-mail scandal (take any bonus square if this comes up in his first 10 minutes of speaking time) - CHECK (in a roundabout way, no bonus) 14. Gets into it in any way with the moderator, either by arguing, unfair question complaint, cutting them off - CHECK, did talk over her when she wanted to move on 15. interrupts while Biden is speaking (even with the mute button feature, this is your “free space”), or mentions “mute button” and “unfair” in the same sentence - CHECK Biden - 1. “He doesn’t have a plan” (bonus square if he replaces the word “plan” with “clue”) - CHECK 2. “Soul of America”, “return to integrity” or “decency” (said “character of the nation”, last sentence had “decency” - CHECK 3. Mentions Hunter, even if to deflect from the issue (no) 4. Apologizes for/ acknowledges any past errors in his political career - CHECK 5. Says something knee-jerk nasty about Trump after being goaded (not really, worst he did was “give me a break”) 6. Apologizes for knee-jerk nasty comment (no) 7. Drops the word “man” out of context (ex. says “look,man” as opposed to “this man here”) - looks like I should have gone with “c’mon” 8. Mentions Obama - CHECK 9. Mentions Kamala (no) 10. Answers a question WITHOUT gesturing with both of his hands at the same time - CHECK (but at least one hand all the time, don’t recall him answering without using his hands) 11. Trump’s national COVID failure (Free space) - CHECK 12. Health care (bonus square if he ties this and the Supreme Court issue together) - CHECK (but moderator tied it to Supreme Court, he did not mention them both together) 13. “Worst President” or “most corrupt” President (no, but did say “criminal”) 14. References the fact Trump himself had COVID in any way - CHECK 15. Makes a comment about the mute button in reference to Trump (no) Moderator- 1. Live time fact checks any answer (will accept “That’s not true” as a fact check) - CHECK 2. Says”I’m sorry” in any context (no, was forceful when she interjected) 3. Asks Trump about his taxes or China bank account - CHECK 4. Asks Biden about stacking the Supreme Court (no) 5. Election interference - CHECK 6. Interrupts a candidate mid-answer to get them to answer the real question and not what the candidate wants to say - CHECK (In fact she warned Trump before he started to answer the “talk to black people”, and Trump still did not answer the question) 7. Interrupts a candidate mid-answer to remind the other candidate not to interrupt (Bonus square if they make mention of the agreed upon “debate rules” as part of their chiding) (no) 8. Asks a follow-up question to pin a candidate down on a wish-washy answer (this may be the one that prevents a blackout card) - CHECK 9. COVID (free space) - CHECK 10. “Let’s move on” (bonus square if either candidate returns back to the previous topic right after the new topic is brought up) - CHECK (no bonus) 11. Allows either candidate to ask their opponent a question on an unrelated topic instead of cutting them off - CHECK, but she did a good job many time’s of not allowing it, only let it happen on the Crime bill 12. Reminds us that there is an audience who will stay quiet throughout the proceedings - CHECK 13. Mentions the mute button - CHECK 14. Reminds either candidate a second time about the mute button as a warning or threat 15. Has to tell a candidate more than once during an answer that they are out of time - CHECK Obviously missed a few options, any obvious ones I could replace with something better?

To steal someone else’s tweet, joke’s on them - dad is still alive.

There are restrictions on clothing. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/10/14/us/election-what-not-to-wear-trnd/index.html

Unearthed - actual footage of Speedflex and 17to85 discussing Alberta politics:

To realize that you are wrong is not enough. You must be willing to accept that realization, and acknowledge it. That requires humility and self-effacement. The current occupant of the White House provides exactly the opposite model. So many of his lies are so simply disproven (“my inauguration was the biggest ever” - “here are pictures and mass transit data easily and unequivocally disproving that” - “fake news”) and yet he brazenly and with blind confidence doubles down every time. And he is admired by many for that characteristic. THAT is the difficulty in changing minds today, people’s egos are too caught up in their positions to admit they are wrong, and on the flip side too many who want to prove them wrong do it to feel a sense of superiority over others and hold it over them, rather than to genuinely embrace knowledge and lead to more enlightenment. The us vs. them mindset prevents a lot of opportunity for increased awareness and learning. IMO.

Actually it will happen 366 times in history. (Edit: I had even screwed up when I first said 365. Leap year)

And also larger advance voting means larger voter turnout overall. Who were you quoting in this post?

Lincoln Project with another ad. Regardless of your political stance, hard to argue that they are not attention grabbing, and they make excellent use of sound bites out of people’s own mouths to make the case for or against them.

So the article about Trump and Christ is a really perfect example of why distrust exists and how each side can spin it to fit their preferred narrative, and dovetails nicely with Wideleft’s comments here. The headline of the article is patently false at its most basic level. Trump never said that. He tells the tale that “someone” (I hate to use absolutes as exaggeration, but it really does feel like he always drops that anonymous “people say” or “someone has told me” as his go-to source for speculative and often questionable information) said he was the most famous, he denies it and when asked to name one person who is, he says Jesus. So he is not at all saying “only Jesus is” more famous, but that Jesus is one example of a person who is more famous. And since he was only asked to name one person, it leaves open the question as to whether there are more than one or not, so the headline “spins” it in the way they want to frame the story - that Trump is an egomaniac. Which sadly they can do just as easily without the misleading or patently false headline. But it’s click bait, so their real underlying mission is accomplished. Trump backers thus get fuel for their “fake news” mantra, which does real harm to the system when an important story does come up. Trump bashers revel in another example of his hubris as a sign of his unfitness. And since it is Trump himself relaying the story, it would have been easy to point out that he is again talking about himself through the shadowy spectre of a third person to point out how famous he is perceived to be, and throws in a humble-brag when true self-deprivation would have been to follow up with “and that one person is not an exhaustive list by any means”. So read critically, folks. And even more importantly, think critically. Maybe the discussion should be “You know, Trump legitimately does have a case for being the most famous person in the world right now. So what? When did fame become the measure of a person’s worth?” The answer to that would say a lot about him, but even more about us.

Nice attempt at deflection. However, the point that was being made isn’t that other news agencies aren’t mistake-prone (of course they all are to varying degrees), the point is that your source is. And your (IMO defensive) response acknowledges that your source is questionable. So be it. My question for you though is, since you have avoided the mainstream media as you yourself put it “I don’t want to continue to be misinformed” then why do you castigate them and yet give your guy a pass for his misinformed takes? Is it more-so that he fits your worldview and validates your opinions, so you see him as more credible?

Here is a Wikipedia bio of Mr. Dore. Like Donald Trump, I just put it out there and let others decide. Unlike Donald Trump, if asked, I will take a position and not pretend I don’t know anything while spreading information or potential mis-information (IMO this guy is not credible). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore And here is some context to the NY Post story itself and the Twitter and Facebook blocking by snopes.com, take it for what it is worth: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/10/15/hunter-biden-laptop-giuliani/ The article was explicit about rumblings that the e-mails were forged, but did not explore it in too much depth. Still, even the sequence of events as reported by the Post in obtaining the laptop would raise many eyebrows. If this was courtroom evidence, I know a boatload of lawyers who would line up to cross examine the witness on it, lots of holes to attack in that story.

And in some cases people have waited 9 hours to vote (curiously enough, reports are that the longest waits seem to always pop up in districts that are predominantly black). This is 3 weeks out from Election Day. Imagine how slow voting will be on the day of.

“Cocaine” *snicker*

So the Florida-LSU football game got postponed because of a COVID outbreak amongst some Gator players, a few days after the coach called on students to “pack the swamp” (90,000 seat stadium). And now Alabama coach Nick Saban says he has contracted the virus.

Made the same statement (threat? promise?) in Minnesota. Only 48 states, one district, and 2 territories to go! “Mexico will pay for the wall” 2.0

That is laughable. Don’t know if you are trying to fool yourself, but that argument doesn’t fool me. Trump mentioned the question of Cruz’s birthplace twice that I can find. Once in March of 2015 when they both announced their candidacy and he noted what everyone knew - that Cruz was born in Canada and so legally it could raise questions in court that could take time (BTW legal scholars seem to have consensus that “natural born” extends beyond “born in the USA” and Cruz would have qualified). He mentioned it once again in January 2016 when they were both front runners. His motivation then seemed clear enough in that he was looking for an advantage over a political rival. His attacks on Obama lasted 5 years and were based on no more speculation than his patented “some very credible people say” assertion with no source and no proof. And he was never running against Obama, it was a pure baseless claim motivated by......what exactly? Here is a timeline: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-birther-timeline-20160916-snap-htmlstory.html I understand that you don’t like the corporate controlled mainstream media and their biases, but your internet based “news” sources are no less biased and are often just random opinion blogs from wannabe celebs in the dark corners of the net with little to no fact-checking undertaken. Slanted bias of a fact-checked story is one thing, unsubstantiated rumour mongering, which was the Obama birtherism in a nutshell, is quite another.

Why is it that Trump’s xenophobia is limited to countries where people have darker skin then? And we all know Trump was wrong on the birtherism stuff. The question for you is how is that not a racist attack?

Just where do you get your information from then?

You are. 1) It was the senate, which was Democrat held, and not the Obama administration, that used the nuclear option. Different branches of Government 2) Harry Reid changed the rules for filibustering to simple majority, but deliberately not the Supreme Court appointment. The filibuster was being abused by Republicans to block all of Obama’s appointments for lower court judges and cabinet positions. The Dems specifically left the Supreme Court pick at a 60 vote threshold. It was Mitch McConnell in 2017 who used the nuclear option to change the SCOTUS threshold to simple majority, expanding what the Dems had done but clearly changing the game himself in this aspect. 3) Maybe they don’t voice their opinions at the confirmation hearing itself (although Kavanagh cited a radical liberal Clinton conspiracy at his hearing and vowed payback - nice impartiality there Judge) because it would be suicide, but many Judges are pretty overt in their political leanings well before they are appointed. And the high court decided an election in 2000, so to say the court doesn’t weigh in on politics is patently false.

I’m not going to even try and debate your point about him refusing to do so because it’s insulting , you are beyond convincing otherwise on this issue and in my opinion that reasoning is ludicrous. But please, justify his “shithole countries” comment without using the words xenophobia or locker room talk, and then justify his Obama birther nonsense. I would be fascinated by the spin doctoring there, much like being enthralled driving past a car crash. Really, you are honestly saying you had never heard of Trump disbanding Obama’s pandemic response team? Either you are dodging the issue knowing you can’t defend your position in the face of this counter-argument, or you are massively uninformed given how often it has been brought up in pretty much Every mainstream media outlet. And if it genuinely the latter, then you have just lost your footing on every other argument you have made, since you would have to admit to being equally uninformed on tons of other Trump issues.