Taro T
-
Posts
4,952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Taro T
-
-
12 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
I mean it is an actual curious question what would Trump do with a second term? I mean he can't exactly keep holding campaign rallies all 4 years like last time can he?
Continue appointing conservative judges as openings occur.
Continuing getting peace deals negotiated.
Possibly continue to make tweaks to prison reform to further correct the unintended (being charitable here) consequences of Joe Biden's '94 prison reform law.
Continue gutting funding sources for terrorists like ISIS & Hezbollah.
That's just for starters.
-
17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Come on Tibs. That’s your takeaway from the Tubin story? Really?
”I know you are but am I?” ...PeeWee Herman would be proud.
One plays to their "strengths."
-
12 minutes ago, Gary M said:
Crack head know nothing son gets huge payday from foreign countries while dad is VP, nothing to see here move along.
Sadly, not positive that being corrupt as any Latin American dictator is illegal. (Yay, us.)
But it should be disqualifying to have a rational person vote for him. Oh, it still is. Cool. Here's to hoping.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:
So this guy at work and myself are having a disagreement on the stock market with Biden in office.
He thinks it will go down immediately but end up with the same positive slope, reaching heights higher than it was during Trumps administration.
I personally think we are going to a depression, than recession with Biden. I think you will see a huge sell off, and some uptick just because people will try to profit from the immediate response, but then I see a long downturn extending for years.
I just think Trump is going to everything in his power to get the stock market to decrease to prove he was the one keeping the positive model. I also think the whole tax situation will play a role. If it is true about the LT tax gain changing, there will be a lot of sell off going on.
Expecting we'll see the same sort of thing we saw under 44. The stock market will do well because the companies listed are large enough that they can meet the additional regulatory hurdles that get imposed, but small businesses that were succeeding prior to the lockdowns without the same resources will struggle or fail. The economy is far bigger than just the Dow or even the S&P 500.
Minority unemployment and under 30 unemployment will continue to be ridiculously high it was under 44's tenure. You know, the people that the D's claim their policies are geared to help.
We'll also see some more terrorism & possibly/likely get into additional international conflagrations as Iran gets back on its feet. China will resume flexing its muscles as well.
-
12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
This line has gotten really old. It never held water to begin with but after four years it’s really a stretch to call Trump a wannabe dictator. Maybe you should stick to the oldies like calling him Putin’s Puppet. That one was a classic!
Well, clearly he's a dictator. We have irrefutable proof such as: reporters in jail for writing stories that reflect poorly on 45; supporters of his opponent having their Twitter & Facebook accounts suspended right before they are sent to the gulag; overstepping state & local authorities jurisdictions right before gunning down the Antifa "peaceful protesters" STILL rioting in D controlled cities; starting new wars by taking our nation to war against countries for no reason; Comey, Brennan, & Clapper (not to mention at least 2 dozen others) that have been ruthlessly assassinated for simply working against the peaceful transfer of power to this dictator. That's just for starters.
Oh, none of that's happened, well...
Oh, totally forgot, his worst dictatorial item of all, he says mean things about dreamy people on the twitters. THAT is obvious PROOF he's a dictator & not merely a narcissistic jerk.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, B-Man said:
Ahhhh, the old "feigned ignorance" response by Kemp.
A standard for him.
😃
Feigned? If you say so.
-
21 minutes ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:
Glad you support having that info brought to light. Truly doubt it'll bring info you like to light, but again, glad you support this.
-
2 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:
Don's Favorite NEWS outlet has been VERY critical of him lately.
There is only so much crap you can wade through.
Now Don's favorite news is QAnon, OANN and One America News
OANN IS One America News Network.
-
1
-
-
Am definitely intrigued by the possibility of reviving it. The question is, will it be the well written version that ran most of the series or the continuation of the schlock that was the final season?
Don't have Showtime, so will likely pick up the DVD after its run if the reviews are good.
Guessing Deb will take on Harry's role. Which could be an interesting twist.-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
This is the stuff of banana republic dictators. It's what happens when we accommodate extremism. It has to end. There is no space for the unjustified incarceration of a political rival in any corner of this democracy. There is no space for the leader of this country to suggest such incarceration. And there should be no space for anyone to support that behavior, be it overtly, covertly, directly, or indirectly.
This will be my last post here for awhile. It's come to my attention that my bluntness and honesty has hurt the feelings of some very tender Trump supporters here, and in doing so I may have hurt this website. I couldn't care less about the former issue; it's ironic and pathetic that a bunch of people who support misogyny, xenophobia, dog-whistle racism, and the unjustified incarceration of political opponents, and who lack the empathy to wear a mask to protect their neighbors during a pandemic, have complained about and are so damaged by the expression of truth.
The latter issue, however, matters. I don't want to hurt this business, and I don't want to imperil this website. I've also wasted too much time here, amusing as it may be.
So, I'll stand back and stand by for awhile. Hoax. I'm not a scumbag who supports the Proud Boys. But I will go away for awhile. That's the truth. Best of luck, and choose wisely in October/November. The fate of our democracy depends on it.
Go Bills. I will see you all in happier times.
Hoax.
-
5
-
-
On 10/13/2020 at 6:09 AM, ALF said:
Ambulance arrives for Georgia voters 'passing out' in long lines: Report
Controversy allegedly erupted as the chance to cast ballots on Georgia’s first day of in-person early voting Monday when thousands of people waited for hours to make their voices heard.
Liberal activist Shaun King tweeted an image of the scene: “It’s OUTRAGEOUS. People are passing out. The ambulance just came. People are hungry and thirsty. People are leaving for work. This is voter suppression.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ambulance-arrives-for-georgia-voters-passing-out-in-long-lines
Isn't the point of extended voting to allow people to come back & vote on a different day if the lines are too long?
Or was the 1st day voting was open going to be the only day all of these rocket scientists were going to be available to vote?
That people are stupid is not disenfranchising, though maybe it should be.
-
6 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:
Yes support the far right or suffer the consequences?
Not exactly. But pretty sure responding "Hoax!" to every post one disagrees with will lead to a short visit.
Pretty sure the point is to have discussions. And, maybe some minds get changed if the points are solid. Most of the long time posters at this subforum have had their positions altered through the years due to effective arguments.
Post where you're comfortable, but maybe being outside your comfort zone is a good thing.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Gee, so sorry we didn't have time to cover National Security nor Leadership because the Climate Change discussion ran long.
Any bets on how quickly she gets off of "American Families" after 45 continues to bring up the story of a particular American family from Delaware? Maybe they will have time for Leadership after all. (Pretty sure National Security gets dropped as quickly as American Families does.)
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, section122 said:
That's a dangerous game to play. By that logic, Trump has yet to denounce the russia paying to kill american soldiers info so it must be true.
It's october every news story on both sides needs to be taken with a boulder of salt. The laptop story is certainly more than a little fishy and doesn't pass the smell test at all. Doesn't mean it isn't true just means that barring actual evidence, I'm not buying it.
No. There have been myriad people in the military that have looked into the allegations about Russian bounties and said there is no credible evidence of the bounties being offered.
Your comparison is one of apples to outboard motor propellers.
Biden's camp came out with a VERY qualified denial of the story immediately when the story came out. If he really didn't meet with the guy, why say it wasn't on his schedule rather than he didn't meet with him? Why not simply say he didn't meet with him?
Why did Biden lash out at the CBS reporter that asked him about it without answering the question?
-
1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Or they might just be hoping the story dies out for lack of attention from the mainstream media.
Ummm, your opinion is that they immediately put out a denial that didn't actually deny that the Burisma guy met w/ the VP rather than putting out an ACTUAL denial because they're hoping the story fades out?
Don't suppose you have a reason for why a non-denial is better than a flat out denial IF the VP truly never met with the guy?
Especially when we know it was the VP's threat to withhold loan guarantees that got the prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because the VP bragged about it and there is video evidence of him braggi g about it.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/on-hunter-biden-remember-the-real-story
This strikes me as a fair account and demand that certain questions be asked without jumping to conclusions.
For example, the statement referred only to Biden's "official schedules." There could not have been some sort of unofficial introduction, could there? And the statement said that no meeting "as alleged by the New York Post" ever took place. There could not have been some sort of introduction that did not fit the allegation in the New York Post, could there? Certainly the Biden campaign would not make a lawyerly, evasive statement like that, would it?
The answer is not clear. Especially after Politico reported: "Biden's campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn't appear on Biden's official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory. Pozharskyi did not respond to a request for comment."
Oh. That reporting, if accurate, made the situation a bit murkier. Perhaps there had been an "informal" interaction between the elder Biden and Pozharskyi, but it would just have been "cursory." In other words, the New York Post article, banned by social media, denounced by many journalists, might be accurate.
Considering the campaign still has yet, 3 days later, to make an actual denial denial, rather than their non-denial denial; the odds increase that the story is accurate.
Which would increase the likelihood the info on the laptop is legit, which would be very bad for the former VP as that doesn't seem to be the most damning thing on the laptop.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SDS said:
but what you just described is me and having moderators. Or any website that provides any moderation.2 hours ago, SDS said:
but what you just described is me and having moderators. Or any website that provides any moderation.Realize that having typed that out as briefly as it was stated that it could come across that way.
Was simply trying to clarify to whomever post it was in response to, that though 45 had A tweet shouting "repeal 230," that many (most?) people that want to see changes to how Section 230 gets enforced DON'T want to see it repealed. But merely see a bit more fairness shown by the 800# gorillas that essentially have become monopolized communication conduits. Also, would definitely want to see what's proposed before endorsing anything (many "solutions" could wind up far worse than the current "problem").
And also expect that if Big Tech does continue to mess with ~1/2 of their product (let's facevit, the advertisers are their customers) somebody else will come along and take that product from them by not messing with them, so there may be no long term need for adjustments to regulations nor new laws needed overall. Plus, looks like Twitter might find itself facing lawsuits for violations of campaign finance laws, so who knows where this all leads.
Hope this and the other post didn't detract too much from the purpose of your thread. Apologies if it did.
And haven't proposed any solutions to your original Q's of this thread, because really not sure what the answers are & flat out don't have the bandwidth to help implement them anyway.
The suggestions the old-timer have made seem reasonable. If you are looking for thoughts from a different perspective, maybe reach out to Kelly the Dog or TPS for their thoughts on the issue. They were very active on this board in the past and neither would ever be accused of being right wing. (And not making that suggestion to create even more work for you; simply making it because nearly all the lefties offering you advice have never seen this place when it wasn't perceived to be "a right wing circle jerk."
Thanks again for this site & SS.
-
9 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Yep. Not much real football going on, an extremely heated political season (and let's face it, politics talk is kind of a substitute for sports talk), and work at home is why I started poking around here after years of ignoring it.
I tend to be interested in polls and political analysis -- punditry I guess -- and some posters here have interesting perspectives and expertise in areas I'm not so well versed in. So that's fun.
If PPP were gone I don't think I'd go looking for a substitute as perhaps some defectors from TBD will do. That just strikes me as weird. PPP is here as an adjunct to a football fan site -- a really good one by the way -- so it's easy to move between football and politics. But I understand that PPP kind of sprung up organically rather than as some kind of grand plan that the combination Football Talk + Politics Talk is some kind of aging guy's nirvana (there are a few younger posters, but my sense is the median age here is higher than even I care to admit).
So to answer SDS's question: great if you can keep it and keep it reasonably under control. If not, well, I'll survive.
Final thought: all of the people here agitating about repealing Section 230 -- what exactly do you think would happen if 230 were gone and the owners of a website could be sued for, oh, I don't know, some poster accusing a prominent person (or even a fellow poster) of being a pedophile with no evidence whatsoever? If you think outrageous/fringey thoughts are being stifled by Twitter/FB/Google, just wait to see how much they'll be stifled by a flurry of lawsuits against owners of web forums ...
For the most part, the talk of "repealing" Section 230 isn't about doing away with section 230, but rather clarifying how/whether the social media companies should continue to recieve exemption from libel liability as if they were ISPs when they now are effecting editorial policies as if they are publishers which do not enjoy an exception from libel liability.
Right now, they are having it both ways. They claim they are merely conduits but also they now effect editorial control. That's not right. And Paj has said they will be promulgating new regulations based upon existing laws.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Warcodered said:
That relationship with the CIA was from 2008-13 and he was a contact I don't know if that makes him a spy. Also the first of these warrants on him came in 2014 pretty much immediately afterwards and two years before he became involved in the Trump campaign and well before Trump was the republican candidate. Also once again I don't think Clinesmith should of done what he did, but to take what one lawyer did as evidence of an elaborate conspiracy against Trump seems a little much to me.
Your timeliness is completely off.
And Clinesmith's perjury is not the only evidence of malfeasance.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:
If that's true it kind of tells you how weak a candidate Bush was. The analysis of that election is a statistical nerds dream.
41 was a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign. Especially without Lee Atwater available to run his campaign.
-
2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
If they'd polled me "bullshitter" would've been in my top 3. But hey, we're not talking about some kind of absolute truth here, we're talking about perceptions.
Fair enough.
But that a "bullshitter" like him can be considered honest shows just how broken the system is.
-
6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:
🤔
actually looking at what he did it seems far less horrifying than what you're implying. One lawyer changed an email saying Page wasn't a CIA source. That's it and it happened in an application to renew the surveillance warrants.
If he is a CIA source, it means he's contacting foreigners to spy on them FOR the USA.
If he isn't one, then contacting foreigners could mean he could be doing something that might compromise our country.
Our IC is supposed to provide the FISA judges ALL the info about a potential subject of a warrant (both positive & negative because the process is secret & the subject gets no say nor advocate) & rather than even do that they falsified the case against him to make it more compelling.
You really don't see a problem with claiming one of our spies is possibly a black hat and then using that to spy on the President? (2 jump rule.)
One additional question, if he was such an imminent threat to our country's national security that he could be legally spied on under the FISA system for a FULL YEAR, why 3 years later is he still walking around a free man?
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:
This one is interesting: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/15/923946468/poll-biden-takes-double-digit-lead-over-trump
I recall seeing one of these about Biden c. 2008 or 2012 and the leading word was "buffoon" or something like that. Now it's "honest." No wonder Trump is hell-bent on publicizing the Hunter thing.
The NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll asked what word comes to mind when thinking about President Trump. "Incompetent" stood out.
NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist pollThe NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll asked what word comes to mind when thinking about former Vice President Joe Biden as president. The word "honest" stood out, but there were plenty of negatives too.
The ONLY major US politician in at least 50 years and possibly EVER that got drummed out of an election for being a PLAGIAERISER is most commonly described as "honest?" Seriously? Did they poll anyone over the age of 40?
-
10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:
It's a different situation as the economy was doing great since at least 2013 and then you had to shut the whole damn thing down because of this virus. It's unprecented. The only advantage Trump has on the polls is who thinks they'll handle the economy better (usually by a few percentage points). The top two concerns are Covid (#1) and the economy (#2). Biden polls double digits better when it comes to who they think would better handle Covid.
That's a common myth. People who look at polling for a living make the case that Perot hurt Clinton more. Clinton was just a more skilled politician as Bush road the cotails of Reagan.
Horsehockey!
Bush was leading before Perot quit & then most of those Perot voters switched to Clinton. When he got back in, he got some of those voters back, but not even close to what he had originally. Most of them stuck w/ Clinton once HRP came back.
How legit will Biden seeing he barely campaigned?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
1. '94 Crime Reform.