TrueBlue4ever

I thought that was J Edgar Hoover. Huh....

Well, your case was 90%, so now that it is 27% it is hardly rested, unless you've conceded the wild exaggeration from the beginning. I'll accept that all presidents have power and make decisions for national interests that would be considered morally unethical if not criminal if undertaken by the average citizen, but the qualification was "moronic criminal" (I've even left out the "dangerous" qualifier for you). So who was the moron? And show me the documented cases of butt pinch/slap/harassment that would rise to the level of serial sex abuser like the standard Trump is being held to. Remember, you want to normalize and dismiss Trump's behaviour by saying 90% of presidents were like that, so you have to back up that claim. Not enough to say "I'm sure it happened, so there is my evidence, case closed" unless you want the judge to come back with a verdict against your client for lack of evidence. Show your work, please, or retract your 90% claim as trolling.

Pigseye: Also Pigseye: Again, Pigseye: "when you grow up and prove that you can actually debate the topic." And also Pigseye:

OK, so on the stand alone "racist" card we are down from 90% to under 27%. So now please add the "serial sex abuser" and criminal moron" factors. Remember, Trump hit all 3 criteria in that subjective post, and since you said it fits 90% of all US presidents you inherently agree with that characterization of Trump as all 3, and just want to normalize it. So, of the list of 11 others, who is the serial sex abuser as well? George W? Wilson? Reagan? One divorce does not make a serial sex abuser, IMO. Who is also the moron? FDR? Jefferson? Eisenhower? Please bother with the rest of your subjective qualifications, since you are willing to debate "if we grow up". Or retract your claim.

So you didn't read it?

Saying "I'd quote sources but you'd reject them so I won't bother" is not fostering discussion.

So I am only asking you to offer your subjective opinion. There are things you can point to back up your "best guess" claim, like JFK's affair or Clinton's and other claims when he was governor that they were serial sex abusers (but you'd still have the dangerous moron criminal and racist hills to climb) or George W's non-response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans as an example of a "racist" response, and his general bumbling in speech as a sign of being a moron and the Iraq war as being criminal (and again, show me serial sex abuse or take him off the list). So don't throw out a random number and then cower behind "it's subjective and you won't agree, so why bother?" If it's no bother, don't spew such nonsense in the first place and then claim "I'm being a devil's advocate". Man up, back up the rationale behind your claim, ID your sources and let them stand up to the light of criticism, and if you can convince us, great job enhancing the discussion and giving a fair and balanced viewpoint from the other side, and if you can't own your opinion and the errors, flaws, or biases that made it not defendable in the end. Otherwise, you are just being a troll and should be banned for doing nothing more than inflaming, which is a legit reason for censure according to board rules.

What about the article was incorrect?

Please identify the 4 presidents who are not racist, serial sex abusers, AND dangerous moron criminals in your mind, since asking you to list the 41 who are would take longer. In other words, back up your claim, or retract it as pure trolling.

It's called proof reading. Seriously, I try (TRY) to not go all grammar Nazi on posts, unless it's someone irritating (see Zontar in US Politics thread) or it's fantastically ironic, like someone posting "your an idiot"

Speaking of descent into dementia...…...

So a donor at a CPAC convention had coronavirus, and Ted Cruz was in contact with them, so he is under quarantine apparently. And today Matt Gaetz (who wore a gasmask to the House of Representatives to mock the vote for extra coronavirus funding) realized he had come into contact with that person too, so he "self-quarantined". By sitting alone in a room. Aboard Air Force One while it was in the air. No indication if the air circulatory system was independent of the rest of the plane (I'm guessing not). He then got into the Presidential limo with POTUS. Oh, and the stock market closed down 2,100 points and Italy is on lockdown. So how was your Monday? Any comments about a hoax? Anyone?

Season ticket holders get a nice discount ($20 off that price) if they pre-order. Just saying, if you needed another reason to sign up for season tickets.

That's your first mistake in going down the rabbit hole...trying to find "context" in Zontar's posts. Your second mistake is then engaging in a conversation by asking for sources or context. Just accept that it simply is a troll effort designed to deflect, frustrate and obfuscate. Remember, never argue with an idiot, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. A simple guide to the methodology: 1. Avoid the issue - Circuit judge has called out Barr for "misleading". Read between the lines: "You at worst lied about or at best severely underplayed what was in the report to cover for Trump, and redacted material that did not need to be redacted to avoid the truth of the document. So I am going to review the whole unredacted thing to determine what should be made public, not what you decided was in your "sanitized" 4 page summary version, because I don't trust that you had America's interests at heart in seeking the truth." Zontar ignores this and spins the "whastaboutism" of the Tower meeting. Surprised we didn't get a basic "But her e-mails!" rant, an oldey but a goodey for the Trump base. 2. Float an alternative conspiracy to distract from the issue at hand - in this case the "fake" Tower meeting. But if you want to follow the "logic" of the Trump Tower meeting, the claim appears to be that the meeting never happened and is another lie of the liberal MSM, with an "independent witness" proving the hoax to add credibility to the claim. Funny, no mention of who this independent source is, or where Zontar is citing that source from (and don't waste your breath asking for one or hold it expecting an answer, Zontar is predictably silent when asked to back up claims - illegal immigrant voting claim the most obvious example). 3. Point fingers about how the other side is corrupt. "Oooh, they are attacking Barr, but don't forget about CIA leaks which are worse, and bad info upon which warrants were obtained. So none of what you hear matters because it was a house built on sand." Another classic version of this was the anonymous whistleblower about the Ukraine call. "Wait, if they don't testify, then they must be tainted, and their evidence is then phony! WITCH HUNT!!!!!!" Except that isn't how the law works. Tips are nothing more than that - tips. They aren't evidence. They are claims to initiate an investigation. If further investigation turns up something, then you compile that information and present it before a judge with a request to obtain a warrant on the basis that something criminal is afoot. If the judge doesn't see anything substantive to corroborate the original tip, then no warrant and the source is considered not good enough, or not backed up enough. If they do see something, then they grant the warrant. The source never need be identified because they are not giving evidence, they are simply offering something upon which an investigation commences. It is the investigation that gets presented as evidence. The material the source provides gets tested, not the source itself. So it ultimately doesn't even matter if the source was questionable, the judge found there was enough underlying evidence to overcome any deficiencies of the source and grant the warrant anyway. But since the evidence is damning and the GOP can't argue it isn't, you attack the process. Like a tip saying there is a marijuana grow-op at a certain house. Police will take that tip and weigh it with further evidence they gather (maybe they do a drive-by and confirm that the location given is what was described, maybe they smell marijuana around the target house, maybe they use infrared cameras and see high heat signatures, maybe they check hydro and see ridiculously large readings, maybe they do a title search and find the owner has been busted for past grow-ops. So they get a warrant and find a massive grow-op. Now, the court could chuck the warrant if they find that the evidence was obtained badly (we trespassed and looked in a window and saw the plants) and the case could be tossed, but we all still know the guy did it. And the whole Trump saga isn't a criminal case, so the same level of Charter scrutiny doesn't apply anyway. So remember when they attack the process, they want you believe it didn't happen, but they can't say that it didn't happen because it absolutely did and all they have left is to scream "Look! Something shiny! Please focus on that and not the actual crimes which totally happened." If all that doesn't work to distract, then the next steps are: 4. This has been going on forever on both sides, so you are hypocritical for calling out the GOP and not the Dems before them 5. Yeah, so what, get over it (amazing that we now have a real life precedent for this exact phrase from Mick Mulvaney).

Yes. Very embarrassing for them. Quite red in the face, or as the Als would say, "rouge".

I think I see him in this picture.....no, wait.

I'll go you one better. Without the rouge, Saskatchewan does not put a returner in the end zone in the Grey Cup against Montreal, and then their 12 on the line to block the kick is legal, and we are deprived of the greatest bonehead penalty in sports history that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Anyone want to dump the rouge now?

We also only have 7 guys with more than 6 goals, so we don't have a ton of depth scoring either.

Right now, 6 clubs in the running for the #3 Pacific or Wild Card spots: Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Arizona, Minnesota, and Nashville. Numbers to chew on: Home/Road games left - Winnipeg 7-7, Calgary 10-4, Vancouver 9-7, Arizona 8-6, Minnesota 6-10, Nashville 7-9 Playoff/Non-playoff opponents (as of today's standings) - Wpg 9-5, Cal 9-5, Van 10-6, Ari 8-6, Min 7-9, Nsh 9-7 Back-to back games/opponent is playing B2B against them - Wpg 1-2, Cal 1-1, Van 3-2, Ari 1-2, Min 2-2, Nsh 2-3 Division/Conference/non-conf games left - Wpg 5-8-1, Cal 7-2-5, Van 9-4-3, Ari 7-5-2, Min 6-5-5, Nsh 8-2-6 Opponent's winning % - Wpg .585*, Cal .560, Van .564, Ari .538, Min .553, Nsh .575 *Winnipeg plays no opponent the rest of the way with a lower winning percentage than them at this point.

Based on current win percentages, the 2nd wild card could be claimed with 91 points, the 1st wild card with 92, if those percentages stay static. So at a bare minimum 17 points but I think likely 18 is needed. So no more than 5 losses for me.

Lots I don't know about the inner workings of American politics, but from my viewpoint: Trump and the Russian bots want to push the "they'll cheat Bernie out of it" narrative on Twitter, and they created the Biden scandal around impeachment, which seems to have legitimately hurt Biden at the start of the primary push. This tells me they fear Biden as the opponent a lot more than Sanders, so that leaves me wanting to root for Biden. As has been said, a Biden-Trump election focusses on Trump and what America's soul wants to be. Not sure that results in a Biden win, but it will certainly crystallize what America really is (if 2016 didn't already open eyes as to just how misogynistic and racist and old-boy establishment capitalist it truly is). A Sanders-Trump campaign is much more about capitalism vs socialism, and the US has been pretty well indoctrinated to hate socialism as Evil Empire old state Russia and Cuba communism. Vastly overblown, but simple fear tactics are remarkably effective in the USA in swaying the general populace. Don't agree with those who say that the safe Biden choice guarantees a loss where we need a radical Bernie shift to energize progressives. Young people flock to Bernie, and that may be the future at some point, but young people for all their (some will call it "woke") activism don't for the most part follow that up with actually getting out and voting. Older folks get out and vote, which is why the old white men so often are left standing. Dems need women and the African-American vote, and Biden carries that. Hopefully Bernie supporters won't be butt-hurt sore if he loses again and refuse to vote. They cried foul because Hillary took all the superdelegates even if Bernie led the polls, but the simple fact is that she still beat him 34-23 in primary contests, had a 450 delegate lead if you remove the superdelegates, and won the popular vote by 3.7 million in their run-off. Bernie backers need to get over the "he got cheated last time, and they'll screw him over again this time" mantra, he lost no matter how you look at it. He has created a movement, but right now America does not need radical to fight radical. Biden keeps pushing the "re-claim America's soul" narrative and it can work. Let AOC lead the march towards and more social democracy when she has a few more years under her belt - America could much more easily buy into her campaign than Bernie's IMO if that is the future. As for dirt, all Trump really can play up with Biden is Burisma and covering for his offspring who got a cushy job because of who his dad is, and do Republicans really want to push that narrative in a one-on-one fight, given what is happening with Ivanka, Jared, Don Jr. and Eric? Biden could easily say, "OK, let's open up that can of worms, but for both candidates - show us all how clean your familial dealings through the Presidency have been" and Trump can't refuse to play along but continue to push for transparency from Joe. With Bernie, it will be "socialism will destroy everything that America is" and Repubs are remarkable - I won't call them patriots - but flag-wavers for sure, who chafe at the idea that anything star spangled red, white and blue is less than the most awesome thing ever. Also, Obama will heartily endorse his former VP as the Dem pick, and it won't feel fake. Same with the Clintons. Dems need a recovery election right now (a course correction from Trumpism rather than a true "left vs right" debate) and Biden can offer that safety. But I agree that his running mate needs to be the spark for progressive change for the future. Warren might fit the bill nicely there.

Have run this before, but always a good reminder of how incoherent Trump is.

Before we decry the state of Manitoba men's curling too much, we should acknowledge that, in addition to having not one but 2 Provincial teams in the field, there are other good Manitoba curlers transplanted on to other teams. BJ Neufeld is on Team Canada, Ryan Fry is playing with Ontario, and Matt Dunstone is skipping Saskatchewan.

http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL.html