SectionC3

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.

A big fat zero from me, of course. But it looks like the healthiest president ever has a campaign fund that, frankly, isn’t so healthy at the moment. So to the ardent Trump supporters here: have you put your money where your mouth is? And, if so, how many Andrew Jacksons have you contributed to this cause? Discuss.

No doubt. They earned the “Dumbkirk” moniker for this stunt.

It’s interesting how some describe the place as a “dungeon” or a “hell hole” and also get annoyed when somebody posts something with a viewpoint different from their own. Cancel culture, anyone?

The recent practice photos seem to suggest as much. I’m with you.

Respectfully I disagree. It fits Trump perfectly. “I like guys who didn’t get shot down” is fairly consistent with “the guys who died” (this obviously is a paraphrase) are “suckers and losers.” Whether it’s true or not is in the eye of the beholder; the fact that Kelly hasn’t spiked it says to me that there’s at least some merit to The Atlantic’s reporting. And the Bolton denial isn’t dispositive until we know whether Trump was within earshot of Bolton at all times relevant to The Atlantic’s reporting. So the answer is yes? Maybe, but not for his military service. Face it. Barack Obama showed more respect for the service of John McCain than did Donald Trump.

Hoax. Lots of lies to unpack here. But let's start with the "coverup" allegation against Governor Cuomo. It's not his responsibility to investigate this issue. So how did he cover this issue up? *** And, let's stick to the script here. Your Trumpian scare tactic about "democrat run cities burning" is wild hyperbole not rooted in truth. What's on fire this morning? Nothing, except for the campfire embers leftover from last night in my fire pit. Another day, another right-wing hoaxy lie.

Which posts of yours did I ignore? *** Also, FYI, the subject is the Trumpian scare tactic about Democrat-run cuties being on fire. Not Daniel Pride. Different issue, big boy. So stick to the subject.