The Great Debate

[basketcase]

There is only one base which needs to stand in line for hours to vote.

True but my comment still applies considering how many Canadians I know who are too lazy or uninterested in a 3 minute wait in line.

 

[shack]

We are going to send all the Haitians back to Haiti and destroy any modes of transportation that exists there. - the USA

Give Haitians back to Haiti
Give Mexicans back to Mexico
And on and on and on.

 

[shack]

Says the guy who constantly derails threads by changing the topic and calls everyone else a trolls.

You know no one here takes you seriously right?

KKKlatu does.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

So Mitch, wtf is the point of this hoaky affidavit being released if the name of the deponent and the notary are blacked out?

Does anything shit its pants more blatantly as horseshit than a "leak" that is anonymized???

Surely if the deponent was serious, he would come out in public and quit his job.

The affidavit even if it is true mentions nothing. It says the deponent has "observed" a bias at ABC. How do you qualify that as a credible observation? It then mentions that there were certain topics such as Biden's health, that Harris's team did not want to be questioned on. I am sure Trump's team would have a similar agreement regarding his recent legal troubles.

 

[NotADcotor]

Looks like possibly the $10m for Russian false information is being poured out here. Regarding the Affidavit:

REAL or FAKE? The ABC News whistleblower's affidavit has been released and there is an ongoing debate about its authenticity

The document doesn't contain many obvious grammatical or spelling errors, but some of the phrasing is awkward or overly informal for a legal affidavit. Affidavits are typically very formal documents, and any sloppiness can signal potential problems:

Example 2: "where issues that were important to everyday Americans would be discussed": The phrase "everyday Americans" is a colloquialism more often found in political rhetoric or news commentary than in legal documents. While this isn’t inherently incorrect, it is not typical for legal affidavits to use such informal language.

Example 3: "Chief Executive Officers of my employer": While this isn’t grammatically wrong, a lawyer drafting such a document would more likely use "executives" or name specific roles rather than this awkward phrasing.

"significant concerns about potential retribution" feels like jargon that a layperson might use when trying to sound "legal" without understanding the proper terminology. It’s worth asking whether a lawyer would use such language.

Inconsistent Formality
In legal documents, tone consistency is key. This document flips between formal legal language and informal colloquial expressions, which raises concerns.

Example: "For the record, I do not endorse Donald Trump..." A lawyer would likely phrase this in a more formal manner, like "It is noted that the affiant does not endorse Donald Trump..." The current phrasing feels like it is designed for media consumption or the court of public opinion, rather than an official affidavit.

Inclusion of specifics: Normally, legal affidavits provide facts, not opinions or generalized observations like "many employees of ABC who were looking for a fair and honest debate." Such language doesn’t belong in an affidavit and sounds more like an op-ed or public commentary.

Unprofessional Content and Tone
Allegations without evidence: The document makes several serious allegations, such as claims about bias and specific restrictions imposed by the Harris campaign. However, these are presented as factual but without the kind of backing or documentation you'd expect in an affidavit. If this were meant for legal purposes, there would likely be more effort to cite specific communications, dates, names, etc.

Unusual Evidence Documentation: The statement about sending a certified letter to oneself and keeping it unopened, as well as mailing an unopened Federal Express package to themselves, feels strange. While it's a method used in some cases to establish a paper trail, it’s an antiquated practice when modern communication methods (e.g., timestamped emails) are widely available and reliable. The focus on "remaining unopened for any future investigations" feels almost like a theatrical gesture rather than a necessary legal step.

Affirmation Process and Scope of Documentation
Certified letter to Speaker Mike Johnson: This might raise suspicion. If this were a legitimate whistleblower case involving potential media bias, why is the letter being sent to the Speaker of the House? It could be perceived as a political move rather than a formal, legal whistleblower process.

Timing: The affidavit is sworn just one day before the scheduled debate, and all the documentation is tied to a very tight timeline. This raises questions about why this was only documented at the last minute. If the whistleblower had these concerns for a while, why not come forward earlier to ensure the issues are addressed?

General legal structure: The document lacks certain key components of a well-drafted affidavit. For example, affidavits normally focus heavily on factual information, with clear and numbered paragraphs laying out the affiant’s statements. This document reads more like a narrative. It also does not clearly distinguish between observed facts and hearsay/opinion, which is essential in affidavits.

Verification: The final section, where the affiant states they are making the affidavit under penalty of perjury, is standard, but there’s no indication in this version that it was witnessed by a notary public. (This could just be redacted, but it’s worth noting.) Additionally, the affidavit lacks legal specificity in asserting the consequences of false statements—affidavits often emphasize the legal weight of "perjury" more directly.

While there are no glaring spelling errors or wildly incorrect grammar, the overall tone and structure suggest the document was not written by a professional lawyer accustomed to drafting legal affidavits. The mix of informal language, opinion-based statements, vague claims without strong backing, and the emphasis on political theater rather than legal procedure raises several red flags. It is possible this document was designed to serve more as a political statement or public relations tool than a formal legal whistleblower affidavit, which would require much more precision and rigor.

This document contains elements that may indeed point to it being a hoax or, at the very least, a politically motivated piece rather than a legitimate legal submission.

Black Insurrectionist--I FOLLOW BACK TRUE PATRIOTS
@DocNetyoutube

Again an example where you show beyond any doubt that a source used my Mitchell is lying to him.

His response. Laughter.

He has basically admitted he is here to troll.

 

[jalimon]

'My beautiful half haïtien mother will be roasting a pig tonight, just like Kamala did during the debate'. Steph Curry

 

[squeezer]

Poor Fox Fake News.

 

[Frankfooter]

Apparently we are all wrong and rump won the debate.
He said so himself.

I can't believe ABC gave Harris the questions, no reasonable presidential candidate could have expected questions on the economy or abortion.

 

[Skoob]

Am surprised you talk about reality when you choose to ignore most of it.

I'm surprised that rather than provide factual information to counter my argument, you just post one-liners that lack substance and are nothing but subjective criticisms meant to attack.

Typical leftist tactics. Yawn.

 

[richaceg]

I'm going to use this at work...might be a genius move...

 

[Bucktee]

Harris took the whole "fake it, 'til you make it" to the extreme.

The problem is that she faked it [slept her way] all the way up to potentially the highest office in the nation [without gaining insight or experience] and now she has to produce. The media is in overdrive trying to convince the world that she's competent.

She's an imbecile that will act as little more than a figurehead, the same way Biden has been during his entire tenure, while those behind the scenes pull all the strings they want.

 

[squeezer]

Harris took the whole "fake it, 'til you make it" to the extreme.

The problem is that she faked it [slept her way] all the way up to potentially the highest office in the nation [without gaining insight or experience] and now she has to produce. The media is in overdrive trying to convince the world that she's competent.

She's an imbecile that will act as little more than a figurehead, the same way Biden has been during his entire tenure, while those behind the scenes pull all the strings they want.

Hmmm, in 2016, the Trump Realty TV star became POTUS yet you tell us Harris has no insight or experience. WTF is wrong with you? LMFAO

 

[Bucktee]

Hmmm, in 2016, the Trump Realty TV star became POTUS yet you tell us Harris has no insight or experience. WTF is wrong with you? LMFAO

 

[richaceg]

Hmmm, in 2016, the Trump Realty TV star became POTUS yet you tell us Harris has no insight or experience. WTF is wrong with you? LMFAO

nobody pulling strings on trump...Biden was running on "auto-pilot" his entire term...LOL...and now his proxy will do the same...dodging key questions is "winning"...LOL...but you still think she's great...was US better during Trumps term compared to Biden? economy and immigration? lefties are experts on sweeping everything under the rug...

 

[silentkisser]

The only entity truly fighting Russia is the Toronto Film Festival execs who have now banned the showing of one of the movies about Russian soldiers in the war with Ukraine for fear of violence.
Take that Russia! https://tiff.net/tiff-statement-regarding-the-canadian-documentary-russians-at-war

Ironically, part of the funding for the movie came from the Canadian government, ie our tax dollars.

btw I'm wondering when the feds here will introduce a new Russia/Ukraine War tax? Hmmmmm....

I do not agree with that decision at all, nor the backlash. For me, I feel bad for the average Russian soldier. In the early days, they might have believed the propaganda and wanted to fight for their country....only to be led by idiots with terrible tactics and weapon systems that were not properly maintained....nor the logistics for a sustained assault. We hear that many did not want to be there, and they are sending prisoners as basically cannon fodder to the front lines. All in all, there is a human tragedy happening on that side as well. Now, I won't say that they aren't doing horrific things to Ukraine and its people. They are. Some willingly. And yes, the government (along with the French government) helped fund the doc.

And...I'm wondering why you think there would be a tax?

 

[silentkisser]

That's quite a bit of wishful, revisionist history.

Obama was President in 2014 when Russia took the Crimea and began the border battles in the East.

But what did Obama do? He started a program giving Ukraine military aid...and imposed sanctions on Russia. Trump did absolutely nothing to resolve the issue with his dear friend Vladdy. And, he tried to extort a bogus investigation into Hunter Biden by Ukraine in exchange for aid. Remember? I mean, he got impeached for those shenanigans....

There is a lot of wishful thinking going on from Trump. I'd love to hear him explain how he would end the war. Would he be able to restore all the territory back to Ukraine, including Crimea? Why would Russia agree to that? Or, the more likely scenario....he'd basically let Ukraine fend for itself and sue for peace or eventually get crushed.

I would like to remind everyone that Trump is not a peace loving person. Sure, he pulled US troops out of Afghanistan (and fucked that dog pretty badly. NOTE - this is not to give Biden a pass for the chaotic withdrawal, but that certainly made it more challenging), but he escalated combat in many other ways, like the significant increase in drone strikes he allowed....with looser rules and regulations on what they could target.

 

[Bucktee]

The media and Kamala Harris say everything is fine, so you cannot believe the people that actually live there and are facing the issues every day.

Remember, the BLM riots were actually peaceful protests costing a mere $1 billion in damages. Truth is whatever they tell you it is.

In order to act, officials need more credible evidence like they had for Weapons of Mass Destruction years ago.

When they say that something is "a threat to our democracy" what they mean, is that it's "a threat to our oligarchy."

 

[Valcazar]

fraudsters and felons are well known for having firm principles and following them no matter what!

To be fair, Trump's racism, misogyny, and authoritarianism have been pretty consistent.

 

[richaceg]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835382525151105304

 

[WyattEarp]

But what did Obama do? He started a program giving Ukraine military aid...and imposed sanctions on Russia. Trump did absolutely nothing to resolve the issue with his dear friend Vladdy. And, he tried to extort a bogus investigation into Hunter Biden by Ukraine in exchange for aid. Remember? I mean, he got impeached for those shenanigans....

There is a lot of wishful thinking going on from Trump. I'd love to hear him explain how he would end the war. Would he be able to restore all the territory back to Ukraine, including Crimea? Why would Russia agree to that? Or, the more likely scenario....he'd basically let Ukraine fend for itself and sue for peace or eventually get crushed.

I would like to remind everyone that Trump is not a peace loving person. Sure, he pulled US troops out of Afghanistan (and fucked that dog pretty badly. NOTE - this is not to give Biden a pass for the chaotic withdrawal, but that certainly made it more challenging), but he escalated combat in many other ways, like the significant increase in drone strikes he allowed....with looser rules and regulations on what they could target.

You seem to get a bit irritated by someone noting a simple fact (Crimea) that conflicts with your narrative. I don't blame Obama, Trump or Biden for Russian aggression one way or another. Russia was going to do what it wanted to do. I agree the invasion was timed to start after the Olympics. That was a short-term timing tactic. Strategically, oil prices surged in 2021 and Putin might have thought the world could not do without Russian oil. It certainly seems that Russia can find buyers.

I have my opinions about the Ukraine independent of what party is in the White House. Really I don't see a lot of objectivity on social media. I see more of the Biden is to blame or Trump is to blame narratives. I just don't see the war ending with a return to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders no matter who is President.

I don't know what to tell you. (That's my polite way of saying you can say whatever you want but I'm not sure there's a whole lot there.)

PS- You sound a bit like Beaver. You should get him started. He can bend time and events to fit any narrative you want.