Certainly! It was a fun mini-mystery to solve.

There was a bunch of old articles talking about how Trump and Bernie owed the cops money, Trump owing considerably more due to a bigger crowd. Once I found out who the 45k was owed to, that made a quick job of getting the reason why.

It must have been another article than the one I shared that said all the money was for the cops because the convention center required a credit card for the deposit, so they could bill the candidates.

76 cops for 7,000 people seems excessive to me though for a Bernie rally.

From Tucson.com 08 OCT 2016

The city of Tucson finally has one answer to its demands that the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns pay the roughly $125,000 the city says the two groups owe for police protection at March rallies at the Tucson Convention Center.

A lawyer representing Sanders rebuffed a formal demand by City Attorney Mike Rankin for $44,013, saying the campaign never asked for police protection and suggested it should bill the Secret Service .

“The U.S. Secret Service typically made arrangements for all security matters with regard to Senator Sanders during his presidential campaign,” wrote Brad Deutsch, a lawyer for Bernie 2016.

“Therefore, to the extent the Secret Service independently contacted the Tucson Police Department … to assist in its security detail, the law enforcement organization should discuss cost-sharing matters directly with the Secret Service.”

I don’t know much about Taylor, but I feel she has the PR game down.

I liked this one because it’s objectively funny both in context and out. Now you’re informed and entertained!

Babylon Bee. I like their logo, but that’s about the only positive I have about them.

You are better off having those braincells back for useful things than retaining that info. I’m a lost cause. 😜

I did find it odd that they unmuted him so many times, but they at least waited so it didn’t interrupt Kamala or the moderators.

Having to unmute him for him to go on baseless rants also seemed to highlight the fact that he was interrupting and couldn’t control himself or his lies as they still fact checked his interrupting. They still essentially had to grant him permission to interrupt, and like the way the opening handshake and greeting led by Kamala made him look unprepared and weak, I feel the purposeful unmute had a similarly subtle but tangible effect.

They did let Harris chime in a few times in the same way, so I feel it was fairly unbiased. Without him being in a soundproof booth, the mic cut can only help so much as you could hear him on Kamala’s mic before his was turned back on. The way the handled it felt like a compromise, so as she got a chance to wrap up her thought before the interruption was purposely addressed, while still handling it as an interruption and not giving it additional validity like if he could just jump in, cut her off, and gain control of the situation. The mods were still in control the whole time, which I feel is rare for any conversation with Trump.

I felt it did a good job pulling the issue back to the rights of the adults consenting parties people who are dealing with this as a legit medical issue of their own bodies. You don’t relinquish your own autonomy the moment you get pregnant, and morality and religion are both meant to be left out of medical issues beyond that individual patient’s will.

By focusing on individuals suffering and the dysfunction caused to the medical system by infusing fear into treatment of patients, it really removes many of the attacks the anti-abortion people have.

And a huge thank you to the moderators calling out Trump’s lies immediately. The mods really were a cut above the typical ones we get anymore.

I like to make sure people actually read the things I share! 😁

The first half is real from their page, I just assumed the second half was what the article would be about.

This. I have an old vintage alarm clock that I put across the room. It’s set to my “if you aren’t up by now you will be late no matter what” time. If my phone alarms don’t get me up, this thing is so loud and unpleasant I will certainly get up.

Phone ringers are too pleasant sound and easy to snooze. I need to change the tone every few months as I adapt to them all. A harsh metal bell or mechanical buzz on an alarm with no snooze that I cant reach from bed has me wake up at the last phone ringer because it is so ear shattering when that alarm clock goes off, I can snap through all but the worst sleep deficit nights.

It also pisses off the girlfriend when that annoying thing goes off too, so then I have her mad at me for waking her up if I’m not up to shut it off before it lets loose.

I thought it was the R stance that it was their own fault for going out dressed that way?

National Review is about the only place I bother to go for an R take on news, and their front page is not very positive about him this morning.

List of Headlines:

Republicans Blame Debate Moderators as Democrats Take a Victory Lap

Debate 2024: Trump Takes the Bait, but Does It Matter?

Trump’s Trainwreck

Harris Was Completely Wrong to Say That There Are No Americans in Combat Zones Today

An Anticlimactic Debate, an Incomplete Grade

‘Childless Cat Lady’ Taylor Swift Endorses Harris Moments after Debate Wraps

Harris Emerges Largely Unscathed from First-Ever Meeting with an Unfocused Trump

Tim Burton’s Stale Hollywood Gothic: Bobbert says new Beetlejuice not nearly as erotic as the musical

This is why I sit through these things, despite them being of relatively little benefit to me, as I follow politics regularly, so I’m not surprised who these people are. I trust the press in general, but they summarize these things so poorly.

The first Biden debate, he seemed sick from the start, and I think he did ok for being an ill elderly guy, and Trump just spewed BS. I’d give more credit to the guy that toughed it out while sick to do his job than some hyper guy rambling on like a crazy person. The makeup speech where he was supposed to bring the energy stank though, and that’s when I began to lose hope in him winning, even though I think he’s exceeded my expectations I had for him.

I don’t like the pull to the right I feel Kamala’s taking, but she’s still miles ahead of her competition, but I want to hear her stances through her own words, not a crappy summary from the news.

There’s no chance in hell anything in this debate will change my choice, but I think this election is a pivotal place in our history as a country, and I don’t want to ignore it for a Reddit quality summary tomorrow if I can watch it live.

Is that not mob justice?

Have we not seen the Russian funding of right wing networks and the seizing of disinformation websites this week?

Not everyone votes or can really give an informed vote.

If Trump wins, do we accept he’s now unpunishable for his crimes? If the voting majority supported him, do the rest of us suffer his promised revenge on his critics?

This is why we have a legal system supposedly. We have people who are supposed to enforce laws impartially and in a timely manner. The right to a speedy and fair trial, for both the plaintiffs and defendants. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I don’t want a bunch of biased legal know nothings determining justice. That’s some warlord stuff.

Laws are also supposed to protect from the tyranny of the majority as well. It’s also supposed to protect the powerless from overstepping authority, like a rogue president.

I’m no fan of lawyers, cops, or legislators, but I certainly don’t want to live in a place with no law.

Unless you forget an /s, I feel this is a bad take.

Understood. I could have expressed that better.

If there’s no sentence, was there a point to a trial?

This whole circus is held up on the fact the Supreme Court is entertaining the idea that any of the things he’s charged with (or convicted of) can pass as him doing the job he was elected to do.

If he wins, this sentencing date will never come, and neither will any of the others. His acts will be officially sanctioned, and the only ones being sentenced will be us.

You’re correct on all those points.

The take by the legal experts back while the trial was ongoing all said with no priors and it being nonviolent crime that none of them expected him to see prison.

But if we never get him convicted of any crimes, it won’t matter very much.

I thought general consensus is he isn’t realistically looking at jail time for this?

I don’t ever expect him to actually be held accountable, sadly. I just want to see the justice system actually functioning in a way that protects this country as a whole. Trump did a ton of damage personally to this country, but to see the entire court system, the only thing we have to stave off change through less civil means, is a pure joke is the greater tragedy for me.

We could always theorize the laws and voting and our representatives would prevent something like this former presidency from ruining our country, but what have we seen but paper tigers?

This isn’t a verdict, it is sentencing. He has already been found guilty. If the sentence matches what others have gotten for the same crimes, there is no bias.

By failing to do so, he has at best delayed justice, and if Trump should win, has essentially nullified the jury’s verdict.

This feels reminiscent of Camu’s “The Guest.” The judge was given a job to do, and by waiting until the hard decision solves itself without his involvement, now all sides will feel this judge is a traitor.

It’s taken a long time and a lot of reading and thinking critically to get to this point. Many people probably don’t have the time or energy to devote to it, which is why I try to educate in a way that doesn’t try to make people feel dumb for not knowing. I do my best to filter down to the core message and put it in relatable context without trying to add any influence where possible. It can’t be intimidating to try to form an opinion on complex matters, but you can still form valid opinions if someone can help get you started with sound fundamentals.

My personal example is I tried to teach myself music by myself for many years. I picked up bits and pieces and could do a few things passably, but I hit roadblocks very quickly. Now that I have been able to get a teacher, who has the prior experience and knowledge, she’s able to show me the most efficient order to learn skill in, and how to build upon the knowledge and skills I have and to see areas I’m lacking. I’m still developing my own music taste and style and not hers because she takes me feedback and listens to my interests and my own takeaways from what she shows me. She’s been a great help to me without having her force me to what she knows or likes. That’s the kind of thing I want to give to people that look to me for information.

I’m glad I got to share something of value with you!

When people are at either end of the political spectrum, that leaves the vast majority of everything else falling into their version of “enlightened centrism.”

In the specific post I was alluding to, one of the suggested news sources was Unicorn Riot, which I’m somewhat familiar with. I agree with many positions they back, and I believe what they report is very important to document. But when you’re reading an article, and if the story is about the event the author is an active participant in, how is there any argument that the given article is not totally biased?

Now, that is far from saying that article is useless! Quite the opposite, in fact. A first hand account from someone prepared to observe important details of chaotic events as they unfold is extremely valuable information. But they are there, equally, if not moreso, as a participant in said event than as an impartial observer. In that regard, I would never recommend UR as a primary source on an event. If you told me you read a story from Reuters or NYT but said you wished there were something you could read to fill in some gaps or to get some insight into the protest of reasons behind it that you felt that article was lacking, then by all means read something like a Unicorn Riot article!

Activism is important and necessary to improve our world, and I often appreciate the role they play. But activists, by definition, are pushing an agenda, since their entire purpose is to change the status quo. Journalism is collecting accurate info and passing that to the public in a way it can make sense of it. I don’t think there should be much overlap in those 2 things.

Unbiased news should be dry and boring, as it isn’t getting any “flavor” by its author. So perhaps if you’re getting pumped up positively or negatively by what you are reading, step back for a second and evaluate what it is you’re reading and trying to see if someone is trying to work on your emotions, and if that is a thing you want.

I won’t please everyone with my opinions of course. I do try to make sure I can back up my takes with evidence though, or I try to keep my mouth shut otherwise, at least publicly. 😁