Sean Mooney

Should also be pointed out that if Kamala wins it isn't going to be because of "the Democratic machine." That is going to be the lie spread by Trump and his minions and so many MAGA people here will buy it hook, line, and sinker because they are the type of people who blame everyone else for their shortcomings as well. The real reason will be because the GOP once again ran out a very unlikable Presidential candidate against a very disliked current regime. Nikki Haley, Ron Desantis, Chris Christie, hell even like Doug Burgum or Mike Pence are as comfortably cruising to be the President as one can in the 2024 political voting cycles. Sending Trump out again in 2024 is the equivalent of had the Panthers sent out Bryce Young for week 3. Instead the GOP ran out a "me first" dipsh!t who is polarizing in every way- even beyond political divides- and who is more interested in making sure people recognize how aggrieved he is as opposed to championing what he did. Again- the guy was shot at and didn't get a sustained polling bump from it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/amber-nicole-thurman-abortion-death-georgia-b2614314.html- a state committee of 10 doctors say her death was preventable. "Thurman, a medical assistant, was taken to Piedmont Henry Hospital in a suburb of Atlanta after she vomited blood and passed out in 2022, ProPublica reports. Doctors discovered Thurman had taken abortion medication and developed a rare complication in which there was some fetal tissue left in her uterus, according to the outlet’s investigation. At that point, Thurman needed a procedure called dilation and curettage, which would allow doctors to remove the rest of the tissue, ProPublica reports. But Georgia had recently passed a law making the procedure a felony with few exceptions. Doctors delayed Thurman’s care and finally operated 20 hours after she arrived at the hospital, according to ProPublica. She died on the operating table." https://www.newsweek.com/amber-thurman-death-abortion-spotlight-georgia-1955516- ""President Trump has always supported exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, which Georgia's law provides," Karoline Leavitt, Trump spokesperson, said in a statement to the Associated Press. "With those exceptions in place, it's unclear why doctors did not swiftly act to protect Amber Thurman's life." Without looking up the Georgia law (but I'll take the quote from Trump's spokesperson at face value) perhaps they could have operated under the exceptions clause but still the fact that there is a law on the books makes it a little bit more of process as they would almost assuredly need to make sure they are legally in the clear for doing the procedure before doing it and that creates some extended time in all of this.

I'd still say Trump wins. If you account for the margins of error they were off in 2016 and 2020 her lead isn't big enough to win. Now I have read some methodologies of the voting polling taking place and seen some stuff where the pollsters say they are accounting for hidden Trump voters but no idea if their methodology is foolproof just yet.

Today's Bible Verse: "And lo, there came a false prophet amongst the congregation, bearing the name of weepaws, who did profane the teachings of our Lord with deceitful words and a heart of wickedness. For he claimed to be of the flock of Christ, yet his actions bore fruit of hypocrisy and untruth. But fear not, my brethren, for the light of the Lord shall shine upon him, revealing his true nature and bringing forth judgement upon his deceitful ways. Let us not be swayed by the snares of the ungodly, but stand firm in our faith and hold fast to the teachings of our Savior. For it is written, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Let us heed these words and cast out the false brethren from our midst, for the hand of the Lord is mighty and his justice shall prevail." 1 Timothy 2:10 Amen Thanks

I'm on record as saying I don't care what people do with their own lives. Additionally- that comment is a different beast than the other one you accused me of saying. BTW- still waiting for evidence I ever said that. Put up or GTFO

where have I ever said I think that? Please go find the quote and then you can try again to engage

1.) As I showed in the quotes from the article they did prepare for things both candidates would say. Perhaps they purposely chose to avoid Kamala's comments. Perhaps she never said anything they felt was egregious. I said they failed for me on the "fine people" line. 2.) The abortion claim was not on aborting up to term. The claim was this: "They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, who's doing an excellent job, but the governor before. He said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute the baby." That is not legal in the state of West Virginia, or Virginia, or anywhere. Davis was right on that. 3.) The initial response for Kamala was bad but I wonder if they let that go (along with Trump's opening statement) because they were opening statements essentially. In fact, they let the candidates respond back and forth to one another so each person spoke 3 times. Then they went into the tariffs talk. 4.) There were also 2 or 3 times where Muir was trying to do a follow up with Harris (perhaps to push back on her) and Trump cut in and took the conversation in a different direction. 5.) There was a clock and time limits. The clock was behind the moderators so both Trump and Harris could see it.

How do people believe these videos?

Or like any number of times you did that elsewhere to me?

He's trying so hard

My guess is he will just keep avoiding giving specifics

Hey we are working hard in class. Today's lesson is "How to own Internet losers" I just let them read your posts and they go to town. One kid said, "He sounds like a guy who got beat up a lot in school." Another kid said, "He sounds like a guy who still gets beat up a lot....you know when he chooses to see daylight."

Was 2006 the last time any one cared about you?

Your whole appearance today was interjecting yourself into a conversation I wasn't having with you. It was a temper tantrum. Let me guess- your live in nurse got the wrong Little Debbie's for ya

The one I quoted....sorry- I know that was a new thought that pushed out the previous one for you

I did watch the whole interview. I'm asking what part you want me to rewatch that will chance the quote he gave or to even give me the quote he said. Your response is "No I won't do that...." It makes you look like a liar and wrong.

So you have no direct quote to support is what you are saying....gotcha.

He's just a jackass. Anything that is longer than a sentence breaks his brain because the chickpea in his head is only capable of holding one thought at a time. You notice when he pops into a thread it is almost always to change a subject and he rarely talks about more than one issue at a time.

Deflecting now because someone called out your temper tantrum? Also, for someone who says they aren't obsessed with me you seem to want to know my schedule an awful lot. How far away are you watching me from?

What part would you like me to rewatch that is going to change what he said? Or just link whatever quote you want that is going to change what he said.

Lots of babies act out as well when they aren't being paid attention to.

That was 100% his quote. You be better

“The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes,” he said. “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do…” So the VP candidate is admitting he is cool with lying about stuff. Great

Well I know how this will go already. I'll give a thoughtful response. You won't like it and you'll throws insults with the other usual suspects. But I'll go once more into the breach.... I guess a lot of it depends on what one feels the role of a moderator is in a debate. If one views it as simply asking questions back and forth then yes Davis and Muir went overboard. I view the role of a debate moderator as asking questions and pushing back or pushing for a more definitive answer when it calls for it. I would 100% disagree with them arguing policy with a candidate because that is playing favorites. I also do think it is fair play to fact check a candidate in real time especially if it is something especially egregious. But again- don't argue policy with candidates. I think Muir and Davis had very good moments in the debate and some bad ones. Muir did ask essentially why the Biden administration kept the Trump tariffs if they are "bad". Davis pushed on the abortion responses. Both Muir and Davis didn't take the bait where the candidates were daring the moderators to ask the other candidate a question on their abortion position. Also, for all the attention their 2 big fact checks on Trump got, it is not mentioned that they gave Trump over 5 minutes more of talk time instead of doing what some moderators would do and try to cut people off to equal out the time as much as possible. Both moderators could have done some things differently and I'd wager given a second chance they would. I also think the article with Davis and the whole portraying it as "ABC's rising star" is a problem with political discourse on TV anymore. Gone are the days of just reading the news and in this case just letting two candidates debate back and forth. Everything is a launching pad anymore or a place for people to get a foothold. I mean if FOX News gets to hold a debate and Trump gets his wish of Hannity or Ingraham moderating it- there would be the same nonsense. I would also like to point out that the Tweet from Colin Rugg uses the word "retaliation" in how Linsey Davis approached the moderating of the debate and the fact checks. At no point in the article he is referencing does that word appear. Rugg also says "Davis said to the LA Times that she didn’t want Trump’s comments to just “hang” there." She does mention that but also the article adds: "With co-moderator David Muir, Davis had studied hours of campaign rallies and interviews to prepare for the much-anticipated event at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, and were ready to counter the candidates’ most egregious statements." So the clear statements in the article are they prepared for both candidate's to go over the top. The one thing I think they missed pushing back on was the "fine people on both sides" claim from Harris which has been proven to not be 100% accurate. So- do I think they pushed a little more on Trump? Yes. I also think Trump provided the most egregious statements in the debate so it makes sense to some degree. I also feel like Trump's whole persona is victimhood so it was always going to be the story- and was one Trump was pushing before the debate even started. I'd say as well I've seen better debate moderators but I've also seen worse.

"And lo, a mighty warrior did come forth unto the battlefield, swift as a gazelle and fierce as a lion. With skill and agility, he did float as a butterfly and sting as a bee, for his hands did elude the grasp of his adversaries, and his eyes did perceive their every move. Yea, his enemies were confounded, for they could not lay a finger upon him. And all who witnessed his prowess did marvel and say, “Verily, this man is a master of combat, for he is as elusive as the wind and as deadly as the serpent.” And so did he vanquish his foes with grace and cunning, for his skill was unmatched and his victory assured." ---Romans 1:13 Amen. Thanks.