Moonbox

How could it be anything but a conclusion? How could I possibly claim another human being's inner thoughts as 'statements of fact,' or imagine anyone could be deceived by claims that I could? The absurdity of that reasoning alone makes you the fool. The only facts being presented are that Trump lied, knowingly and repeatedly, and that these lies promoted and echoed Kremlin propaganda. The obvious conclusion that we draw from that is that he did so to help the Kremlin. If you have an alternative explanation, or if you want to attack my reasoning, please do so. It would be refreshing to see you provide something of substance for a change.

Well I don't think either of us are interested in that sort of homework. I just know that if you're talking about accounting entries, assets and liabilities published on the same page (balance sheet). That, along with attached income and cashflow statements, are bare minimums for providing informative commentary, casual or otherwise. For me the big question is why does a First Nations have $700M in cash sitting around? That's like the annual expenditure of prosperous city of ~150,000. Maybe it's a big reserve with a big budget. Maybe they got a big gubberment settlement. Maybe, however, they're just accumulating money they aren't using and therefore don't actually need? Without context we have no idea.

I suspect that the quality and integrity of First Nations leadership varies greatly, both in structure and in the quality of people. I guess? It's a pretty vague and not very helpful commentary. Goddess here is at least looking at numbers. The picture is incomplete, but the info is there and it's worth asking the questions. She is probably on to something here.

To start, I actually agree with this sentiment and think the whole First Nations situation and how it gets handled is a joke, particularly when it comes to financial accountability. That being said, financial statements etc. are something that I look at regularly for a living, and without context a single entry tells us almost nothing. Without a good look at cashflow and income statements and a comparison to liabilities (especially current but also future) we can't really determine anything. A big-looking cash position might not be that big if it only covers a year or so of expenses. If it's a recent windfall, it might take years to figure out and get agreement on what to do with it, and there may be restrictions on how it can be used/invested. It might already be earmarked for a large capital project that's awaiting approval. There's an endless list of explanations and without actually diving in it's hard to say. I know you said you included links to all of the data, but I doubt anyone's going to take you up on that offer (not me at least). This is more just a general comment that you're presenting less than half of the information you'd need to make any sort of judgment. Again though, in a lot of cases I suspect you'd be right in the overall argument.

The "evidence" for what I've said is public record. We know Trump lied. We know he did so knowingly and repeatedly, and we know that his lies echoed/promoted widely debunked Kremlin propaganda narratives. The actions and words speak for themselves in this case. If Trump is knowingly repeating Kremlin helpful and Ukraine-harmful lies, the most likely and most reasonable conclusion is that he's doing so to help the Kremlin. You are free to challenge this logic and provide a rebuttal/counter-argument, but peeing your pants and crying about lies that you can't even articulate is retarded.

Good one. Real zinger. 🫠 No I'm sticking with that claim. You're still pretending. You still can't explain why "on behalf of" or "for the Kremlin's benefit" is problematic or dishonest language, nor have you made any attempt to do so. You still won't provide any explanation for why your Orange Messiah deliberately and repeatedly lied and knowingly advanced the Kremlin's propaganda efforts. All you can do here is emptily screech about dishonesty, but that doesn't substitute for an actual argument.

It's really not a "Conservative" thing. It's an axe to grind for the dumbest and most easily distracted parts of the Conservative base - a completely irrelevant topic and something that happened when my parents were children and decades before I was born. The impact of the change on Canada cannot be understated. I'll save myself some time and put blackbird on ignore with August.

The people in the thread? You and I? I'm directly responding to your accusation, and explaining how ridiculous it is to claim it's a lie. Feel free to offer a counter-point, but we know you won't (can't). Empty, limp accusations is all you can offer here. When you can provide some sort of explanation for why Trump would knowingly repeat falsehoods that advance the Kremlin's interests, let us know! 🤡

Do you have a specific critique to offer - something relevant to the discussion? If not, then I'm not sure who you think you're convincing here. 🤡

Utter nonsense. You just said: You're explicitly telling us where you've drawn the line in the sand, and what you're focusing on, but then accuse me of being the one focused on it? That's imbecilic. I'm not obfuscating. I'm trying to get you to be specific for a change, and to substantiate your accusations. I'll refer you back to my previous response: You’re pretending "on behalf of" requires a notarized agency contract. When someone knowingly repeats falsehoods that advance a hostile foreign power’s interests, the beneficiary defines who they’re acting on behalf of, not some imaginary requirement for paperwork. Notice what you’re not disputing: That Trump knowingly and repeatedly lied, that those lies parroted Kremlin propaganda, or that they advanced the Kremlin's Ukraine War narratives. You've turned my choice of preposition "on behalf of" into your entire defense, exposing how intellectually small and bankrupt your argument has been all along. 🤣 Now instead of pretending I didn't respond to this again , or just limply repeating your accusation of dishonesty, maybe you could actually provide a counter-argument? A refutation? Anything but changing the subject?

Since you've made absolutely no attempt to engage the subject of the discussion, and your post was entirely focused on me, it's objectively nothing but trolling. The clueless hypocrisy you demonstrate with this sort of behavior after spending as much time as you have denouncing it can't really be understated, but cluelessness is one of your defining qualities on this forum. 👍

I'm the one focused on this??? 🤣🤣🤣 Let's review: How do you reconcile this sort of foolishness? At this point all I'm trying to do is pin down what you're even accusing me of, specifically. It's becoming increasingly apparent that specificity and clarity are your kryptonite in debate. If you can keep things muddy and vague, you never have to make a real argument. 👌

Were you attempting to offer anything to the discussion, or was this just drive-by trolling? If the latter, that'd look pretty awkward on you considering how much time you spend complaining about the behavior. Either way, thanks for stopping by. 🙄

A picture you can't even articulate, much less explain why it's dishonest or deceptive. You don't attack the reasoning. You don't describe what's wrong or why. You're not even presenting a counter-argument. You're just making noises and accusations without content. Shouting liar is like a magic word for you - a way of bailing from an argument that’s embarrassing you, because doing so makes your failed reasoning more obvious. It's how you...run away. 🤡

You’re pretending "on behalf of" requires a notarized agency contract. When someone knowingly repeats falsehoods that advance a hostile foreign power’s interests, the beneficiary defines who they’re acting on behalf of, not some imaginary requirement for paperwork. Notice what you’re not disputing: That Trump knowingly and repeatedly lied, that those lies parroted Kremlin propaganda, or that they advanced the Kremlin's Ukraine War narratives. You've turned my choice of preposition "on behalf of" into your entire defense, exposing how intellectually small and bankrupt your argument has been all along. 🤣

“Calling out” a matter of public record as a "lie" or "BS" is peak MAGA self‑embarrassment. Trump's Kremlin-aligned lying is well-documented - on camera for the whole world to see. Run away little Trumpy. Run away.

The objective facts are that the Donald deliberately and repeatedly lied for the Kremlin's benefit, and being the sad sycophant you are, you can't actually criticize him for it. Instead, your energy is spent downplaying and mischaracterizing the behavior as "saying stupid things", like Trump just happens to keep making Putin-helpful OOPSIES or something. Other than the various pauses and suspensions of military aid that he's overseen? Well there's this (which you've been shown 3-4 times now). I know you hate seeing it, because it's objective fact in easy, visual form. It makes it really hard to litigate phrasing and wording, as your so prone to do. Nobody here is surprised that aid commitments and allocations of military aid from the US stopped after Trump was inaugurated. He doesn't get credit for just being in office while the pipeline of previous (and legally obligated) allocations run their course. What he does get credit for is watching that pipeline run down while making no efforts whatsoever to secure new or future allocations, and for the fact that Putin can continue playing the strong hand on the assumption that US support is running out and that he can just wait this out with a useful idi*t running the White House.

More like coping, but yeah. "We didn't even want the candidate we pursued and parachuted into the riding under our banner. We're *sob* sooo much better without him!"

This is just the latest in a long tradition of nonsense threads. The one thing that August does well here is he brings everyone together in one place to read his posts and wonder: Wtf????

Except you're asking me to discredit a phantom photo nobody's provided here, and an anonymous Facebook post offering nothing but the claim itself as evidence of the claim. In short, your argument is: "Here's nothing, now disprove it." You're like the charlatan huckster sneering at skeptics and demanding they prove the shiny rocks you pulled out of the river aren't miracle crystals that cure cancer. After all, you have testimonials claiming they worked! 🤣

Okay, but your feelings aren't particularly relevant to this topic, nor is the CBC. Feel free to lash out and project all you want though. I unfortunately can't give you the same credit. Most 12-year-olds don't automatically believe something just because some anonymous stranger posted it (without evidence) on the internet. That you failed this basic test of skepticism is absurd in itself, but even worse is your expectation that people with non-impaired judgement would find "because some guy said so on facebook" to be compelling evidence. It shows an appalling lack of reasoning skills.

My bad, I had him on ignore... Yup, as suspected, was a freaking Facebook post. 🤣 Like everything, it would depend on context. "Chinese officials" can mean a lot of things, as can "meeting with". I'd be less concerned, for example, with Ma meeting openly with Chinese Tourism representatives than I would be with credible evidence of Ma meeting under a bridge with suspected members of Chinese intelligence and receiving an envelope. Regardless, posting garbage you scraped off of Facebook from some random Anon makes you look as bad or worse than having no source at all. The former makes you look gullible and foolish, while the latter just makes you full of it.

I'm assuming since you've declined to back this claim up now at least 3-4 times upon request that we can safely conclude that (once again) you got your information from a facebook post or a tweet?

No, it's not a lie, because the intent of your "criticism" is to downplay and shift the focus away from the malignant behavior rather than actually acknowledge it. Reducing deliberate and repeated lies on behalf of the Kremlin as "saying stupid things" is just another type of deception - minimization. Since you can't deny the words were spoken, and you can't pretend they were true, all you can do is limply try to dismiss their relevance and importance. The fact is that your Orange Messiah intentionally lied and validated the years and the billions the Kremlin spent on Ukraine war propaganda, but you need to convince yourself that this is no big deal and unworthy of consideration. 🤡 COOL. You point out a thing. Trump doesn't get points for not completely rescinding or impounding funds that Congress already allocated during the Biden administration. He does get credit for substantially slowing and stymying the flow of that aid, however, and for making absolutely no effort towards new allocations or maintaining military aid for Ukraine beyond the next 6-8 months (after which present allocations will be likely be depleted). There's a reason why US aid commitments end after January 2025. It's the same reason that Trump lies on behalf of the Kremlin. Thankfully the rest of the world, and even most Americans, see through Trump's shameful displays. MAGA clowns and ridiculous sycophantic fools like you don't.

What excuses are you referring to, exactly? I think the worst Prime Minister that Canada's ever had was Pierre Trudeau...until his son. I also think that a lot of the Liberal MPs share the blame for enabling his incompetence. That's the rub. Canadians didn't think Poilievre would fix the problems. Peddling conspiracy theories and culture-war rage-bait might be compelling to the base and get folks like you excited, but they're distractions, not solutions.