dickleyjones

Ahahaha ok, that one got me.

ABC did seem somewhat biased to me. not so much the "fact checking" i actually thought that was fine for the most part, rather, the questions they chose to ask. most were fine but it seems to me if you ask trump about his "kamala's black now" statement, you should ask kamala about one of her controversial statements. that said, trump and friends have been complaining about media bias for years. that means they know going in this is how it will be. given that, you would think trump should have been totally prepared to combat this. than, when it went poorly, you blame ABC? that makes you look even worse. I actually thought trump was going to be prepared and turn it around on them as he has in the past (quite brilliantly!). not sure what has changed for him.

Harris looked like a prosecutor. Trump was too reactionary. the general consensus is she won. that said, i don't think the debate will make much of a difference in polls. BUT i do think it may affect voter turnout ie people who wanted to see if Harris could "take Trump down" got to see exactly that and may reward her with a vote. if Harris had sh*t the bed, more people stay home. of course, only time will tell. maybe debates don't mean anything anymore.

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

idiots and statistics...100% garbage.

Polls are not useless. Some people will choose to vote based on polls. Polls are accurate. The 1000 people surveyed answer, the results are tallied, perhaps some mistakes are made. But on the whole, the poll itself is likely accurate. Polls are not predictive. Tiny sample sizes, terrible randomization, plenty of confounding factors. A single poll means nothing about the future.

What other players have done has zero bearing on what Cine will do. Come on McD, coach this kid up!

Arrrr?

i agree with your first few points. let the man (or any person) tweet. However, you still don't understand the college. the docs want self regulation and fought for it. the gov will not overstep them because if they do they break years of president and they dont want to be seen as controlling doctors, they have agreed that it is upon doctors to regulate each other. if the gov had stepped in it would have been massive shift that neither side wants. so they did what they almost always do: nothing. as for your theoretical doc in toronto, you are wrong. the most recent ethics course i was involved in had two docs who were exactly as you describe - city docs with little following who had complains launched against them by patients who didn't like their covid rhetoric. the punishment was take the course and pretend like you are remorseful. neither could comply, i bet they will fail and have to take the course again. no gov was involved at all. its all just performative nonsense so that the doctors can be perceived as "protecting the public" when i fact they mostly just protect their own asses with little to no consequence. btw as i said i don't agree with the college. but when they receive a complaint they have to do something (or at least appear to). if the gov were actually involved it would be much worse, the college is a good buffer this is why i say you have to take the good with the bad.

And again, he is not special. This happens often, the gov lets the colleges regulate themselves and thats the way most drs want it because otherwise the gov WOULD be involved. They almost never step in unless criminality is involved. This is not government censorship, it is peer censorship ie "someone complained and he's making us look bad". And although i don't agree with their stance, all it really amounts to is a performative action. Nothing that actually matters much besides perhaps being forced to take a day off to attend a course. This is something drs/dentists sign up for when they are licensed. The college gets to appear like they are doing something. You really think anyone is gonna take a course for 8 hours on ethics and come out the other side any different ie brainwashed? Lol if anything my experience tells me it does the opposite and just causes someone to harden their stance. I have seen it first hand many times (the dental college). If you think drs shouldn't regulate themselves then that is reasonable. But you have a major fight on your hands to remove self regulation.

Nah, it's not the canadian gov, it's his college. The gov decided they want nothing to do with it and that the college gets to decide which is the norm. I have seen a lot of this (some firsthand). You can argue with the college all you like but honestly they are mostly toothless. So you take a course in something you don't care about, pass, and be done. I just went through this, all it was was an ethics course and an essay like a kid in detention. No one's mdnd was changed, no one is in the gulag, very very few ever have their license revoked. This is doctors managing doctors wanting to appear to be doing things in the public interest but really it's almost always just lip service and performative measures. I won't say it is good, i think it is usually just a stupid waste of time and money. Without the college involved it would be the gov, the courts, etc, so i guess if you are a doc you take the good with the bad and be satisfied that at least you are self regulating.

Lol i'm sure this ban will have the desired effect and totally not backfire. Sincerely, Barbara Streisand

It's kinda funny but it comes off as mockery more than anything ie you are deranged if you don't agree with me. I suppose its meat for the base. The voiceover is terrible though, text to voice tiktok style?

Cool! So this means either way, Jesus is coming back in November.

pop into the chatbox, "game over" usually shows up before the end of the 1st quarter.

you know, i thought Vance was the right pick for Trump. Trump has such a great sense of humour and Vance seemed like the kind of guy who gets that. but Vance himself just cannot land a joke well, it may have been better to pick someone more serious to play the straight man.

I want to like manningcast, i really do, but the audio is so atrocious i can't bear more than a minute or two. Do better, rich dudes!

Yes, exactly what I mean.

It would have been more reliable and just as acceptable to say "we can't confirm Trump wrote it, but there are people saying he had a hand in its creation."

Sounds reasonable. Except, how can they defy their communist masters?

I understand why they would lie 1000s of times - to fulfill their communist agenda. What part of the communist agenda includes defending Trump?

How could the communist news do this?

"communist" being a label is what i suspect. Been that way a long time, here we go again. But i am not above discourse on the topic. It appears those that throw out that word ARE above discours. Ah well, i seek to understand, it eludes me for now no thanks to the posters who really can't have proper discourse for some reason. On price control, sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't. Imo it's kind of a do nothing promise as it does not solve anything. But it might make someone feel good so it's an ok strategy.

The list is a work of fiction as i already pointed out. It says so right in your post. And even if it were really written by actual american communists, you fail to acknowledge that this list is mostly a guide to power for any political entity. One that is followed by entities i think you support. One that has been followed by multiple entities throughout history. I won't bother showing you how, for example, "control education" is a pursuit followed by nearly every political entity in existence. Do i agree that dems will pull all sorts of ***** like the list? Of course! That's what political parties do. The r's are doing the exact same thing in their own way. You could check most of the boxes for them on that list. Does that make R's communists too? I can only imagine that you avoid roosevelt discussion because it does not fit your narrative at all. And because it's a jumping off point for further discussion of how many many (many!) so called anti communists do so called communist things.

It is an interesting list. and let me say i do appreciate you conversing with me honestly about your position. i really do seek to understand. i wish we could find the actual list or minutes from the communist party from back then to see how it aligns. in their own words. as it stands this is the work of an author who may very well have been in the know. he probably has some bias because of his strong faith. one thing that strikes me is the many ways the list is unlike the current Chinese gov: eliminating oaths, eliminating censorship, promoting pornography and LGBT, promoting riots, defunding police, discrediting family. the list mostly reads as a guide for any political force to take power. plenty of this list applies to both Rs and Ds and govs across the world: permit free trade, foreign aid, control schools, promote protests, control media, control unions, control big business. none of this is unique to communism. the pro LGBT and pro social religion stuff just the other side of promoting religion which are all forms of controlling others (especially children, in schools, in media...). i mean, sure, atheism and communism go together, but atheism is not prevalent. i suppose you can add non-religious which IS increasing. but non religious is not necessarily communist. the original author of this piece was a very religious person, his views come through in the list. communist China agrees with him on the LGBT issues. ok, i had better stop or @B-Man is gonna shoot more beavers at me. i really would like to hear your thoughts on Roosevelt being a communist (or not).