SectionC3

Solid point. Rule #2 applies here.

Context is key. If you think you’re going to win an election on an Internet message board like this one, you don’t know what you’re doing. It is a waste of time. All day long.

I’m not sure how characterizing a speech that I liked (and, frankly, that was very well delivered) could be viewed ironic or sarcastic in any reasonable world. Sure. But all that said the demographics of a place like this aren’t clear. Don’t know who the people are, ages, genders, where they live, etc. It’s a waste of time to deal with them. Go on FB and hit them that way with microtargeted advertising. Geofence them. Piggyback them (buy call logs from talk radio stations, etc.) But gambling that a bunch of randos might be in the demo you want and might live in the place you want? Waste of time.

Highly doubt the influence point. I don’t have traffic numbers, but, having been in the business, nobody would waste their time with a bunch of randos like this. At least nobody who has any kind of clue what they’re doing.

And it was fair to discuss them in different threads. Here’s the solution. If you don’t like it, then don’t read it. Don’t complain about it. And don’t try to censor it.

Kind of interesting that Booker is running so far ahead of Biden in NJ. Not sure what to make of that. Probably insignificant in presidential race. But still interesting. *** Looked again. He’s not running head. Spread is weird. But still a strange spread.

The decision to start a new thread about a new speech in a new phase of the campaign is one of creator’s discretion, and that discretion was exercised soundly here. And my intent was to discuss the very important issue of Joe Biden’s quite presidential 9/2 and 9/4 speeches. It’s a shame that none of the “open-minded” right wingers cared to participate.

I’m going to Rule #2 this. Show your work. Thank you. That is a Rule #1 violation. But I forgive you. Which means that you may now have to change your name.

You have a point about the severability of those concepts, but I wouldn’t apply it here. Somehow a threat about a recent Joe Biden speech is generally and derisively characterized as spam, but a long-running thread about Joe Biden’s gaffes is appropriate. The reality is that this board is like much of the rest of our society. We select news outlets based on the message that we want to hear (or, in my case, don’t want to hear, which is anything from Fox News or OAN). Many here — most of whom are right of center — take that approach with respect to content and conversation.

So let’s get things flowing in the right direction again. Bottom line here is that previously calm waters rose up and defeated Trumpers. How do we prevent this from happening in the future? And how do we thank the first responders who were needlessly imperiled by this stupidity?

Probably depends on the insurance situation. But on balance it’s probably a reasonable theory.

Hoax. Boat safety is important. Particularly to Coast Guard and local water rescue teams. I support this thread, and I see it as an important reminder not to have a parade of boats in crowded, choppy waters.

Fake news.

Still waiting for your Rule #2 response, sir. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Same here. What it means to “defund” is key. Are we talking about diverting some monies now dedicated to policing costs to proactive, proven, community outreach measures? If so, and if the extent of the diversion is reasonable, sign me up. Makes perfect sense. If we’re talking about stripping police of all funding and abolishing police forces, I’m out. And I don’t know anyone who is “in” on the latter topic.

Hoax. There is no “promise[]” to “defund” (whatever that may mean) evident in that link. Please try again to satisfy Rule #2. Thank you.

I second the motion for the application of Rule #2 in this instance. I also move for a departure of the topic of this thread, namely, the stupidity of the boat parade in crowded, choppy waters, to address this important question of Rule #2 application.

Nothing says owning the libs like sinking your own boat in a boat parade. Heroes, one and all of them!

Looks like all the big MAGAA supporters here are letting someone else do the financial work for them. It’s almost like they’re fake-MAGAA. Strange.

Turns out the chop wasn’t a hoax!

Hopefully the GoFundMe monies go to the erection of an historical marker for this amazing achievement.

And yet some believe Trump’s denial of the Atlantic story. But back to the topic at hand. Boat parades are pretty lame to begin with. Kind of like something my kid would do in the bathtub with his toys, or with the other little kids in the neighborhoods on their big wheels. A boat parade in choppy waters? That’s just dumb. And selfish. And disrespectful of the first responders who were put in danger by these actions.

They were fake waves!

Hoax as to the second sentence. Let’s stick to the subject here. It’s important to illuminate stupid boat parades so we don’t have any future stupid boat parades in choppy waters.

Hoax. You and he are engaged in a discussion. But it is not, in fact, “the discussion,” as you noted in your post. “The discussion” is discourse with respect to the title of the thread. In this instance, that title relates to the stupidity of a recreational boat parade in choppy waters.