Taro T
-
Posts
4,955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Taro T
-
-
1 hour ago, daz28 said:
These are all considered to be somewhat center sources: BBC; Forbes; The Hill; Newsweek; RealClear Politics; Reuters; Marketwatch; Newsnation. Wallstreet Journal articles that aren't opinion. I'm sure some people consider some of them slanted, but nothings perfect. The only thing I'd suggest personally is looking for quotes. Then look into the quotes for things that can be confirmed via other sources. The only reason I read that Fox article is because it had plenty of quotes. Unfortunately, none of them had any details or other sources that could back up/confirm their claims.
It's not so much that a particular source is Right/Left/Center/Whatever, it's that most all the sources have a horse in the race and if you understand which horse they back you can get an idea of what it is they're trying to leave out of the story. WSJ & Fox - RNC; OAN - 45/47; NYT & CNN - mainstay DNC; WaPo - the IC; MSNBC - progressive wing of DNC; etc. And realize if they are talking about their team, things likely aren't quite as rosy as they were conveyed and if they're talking about another team, things likely aren't quite as dire as they seem.
And it isn't so much that any / all of them "lie"; it's a matter of what they cover and what they omit from what they cover. And even within a particular source, there are individual reporters / journalists that are better than most from that source. Catherine Herridge worked across the full spectrum and is working independently now - she is one of the few good ones. And even she and the other good ones will get stuff wrong on occassion. There are other good ones as well and a ton of really bad ones.
Your are right in looking for actual quotes and 1st hand source material. But beware of snippets of quotes - they can and often are used to convey a totally different meaning to something someone said than what they meant. Also, beware the headline of the article that misstates what the article ACTUALLY says.
And, lastly, you can have the exact same event reported by different reporters and both can truthfully report what just happened but the article will make it seem like something completely different happened. Based off an old joke but appropriate here - two different reporters were there watching the events of the parable where Jesus hopped out of the apostles' boat and went to shore striding on the top of the water; one's headline was "Jesus walks on water - it's a miracle" the other's was "Jesus can't swim." Both witnessed the same event; both "truthfully" reported what happened; but 1 gives a much more accurate image to the reader of what happened than the other did.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
She's not wrong.
-
50 minutes ago, B-Man said:
From AP: https://apnews.com/article/trump-gulf-of-mexico-bc438f4feca1234475a1adef99344da7
Can Trump Change the Name of the Gulf of Mexico?
Maybe, but it’s not a unilateral decision, and other countries don’t have to go along.
The International Hydrographic Organization — of which both the United States and Mexico are members — works to ensure all the world’s seas, oceans and navigable waters are surveyed and charted uniformly, and also names some of them.
There are instances where countries refer to the same body of water or landmark by different names in their own documentation.
E.g., Persian Gulf vs Arabian Gulf. Which you're in depends upon which shore you enter it from. (And most (all?) nations not bordering it call it the Persian Gulf.)
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Wacka said:
Medal of Freedom- now included in every box of Cracker Jack.
Likely more accurately: Medal of Freedom now included with every thank you letter for a 7 figure donation.
-
4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
If Selzer's numbers were correct, it'd almost certainly mean a Harris landslide where she won 350+ electoral votes.
If Dem voters thought the race was in the bag, that would be more likely to decrease turnout than to increase it.
Simplest explanation remains: she missed hard. Not the first time she's missed, but certainly the biggest one.
To your 1st point, true. But the VP didn't come anywhere close to that, so we already know her numbers weren't correct. As an orange tinted former and future Prez would say "she missed hugely." The question becomes 'why?'
To your 2nd point, doubtful. People apparently LOVE to be on the winning bandwagon. So, the idea is more independents will be drawn to the side they expect is going to win and far more of the partisans will be drawn in because they want to be able to say that they voted for the 1st woman ever to be elected president (or from the other side, they want to vote for the 1st person to have two presidential terms separated by at least 4 years in over 100 years). Putting her finger on the proverbial scale is far more likely to have helped than to have hindered the VP's candidacy.
To your 3rd point, as she is generally proclaimed to be "the best" by the pundits and she'd presumably want to maintain that title on the way out and with our also knowing that Harris' own polling never showed her in the lead; the simplest explanation would be one of the following: she's lost her fast ball (your explanation, which if she messed up a lot of other races this year would be plausible), she REALLY wanted Harris to win and thought helping to elect the 1st female president was worth the potential hit to her reputation (also, potentially plausible; how closely she come to calling the Clinton-45 race could help to auger whether this may be likely), or somebody paid her off thinking that her reputation was so stellar that she might help Harris pull off the hail Mary (and considering the campaign had $1.5B to piss away and the DNC pumped in another $1B; would also seem plausible). Don't know how much her integrity was worth to her, but have to believe there was enough money there for her to at least think about putting a thumb on the proverbial scale. She wouldn't be the 1st and she won't be the last.
Where you sit on the partisan scale likely colors your choice of which of those is the most plausible reason for only her 2nd major miss in the last 8 or so "big" elections.
-
On 12/30/2024 at 1:50 PM, JP51 said:
I am not sure if anyone cares or is interested in knowing... but I will write it and if no one cares we can delete it... but it is such a fun niche in Bills tradition...
It was 2 days before Christmas in 1990, the Bills were playing a huge home game against the hated Dolphins... So, all traditions and superstitions were on full display... no one willing to break any one of them. Kenny J (Pinto Ron) had a tradition of eating a Hamburger cooked on a shovel with ketchup before every game... only... this game... Kenny forgot his ketchup... he came to me in a panic... "JP51!! you have to find me some ketchup!!! " so I went to the tailgate next to us and told them and they went into the Mobile home and produced a 12 oz bottle of Heinz ketchup... I came back to Ken with the ketchup and said... how about I get on the hood of the Pinto and squirt the ketchup on your burger that way... Kenny said Brilliant... so, to no fan fare or anything I got on the hood of the Pinto and squirted ketchup towards the burger... well. 20mph winds had different ideas as none of the ketchup was going on the burger... but all over Kenny .... and the cheering started... I literally had to get down off of the Pinto and shake the last vestiges of Ketchup on the burger to keep with tradition... We won...
Next week Kenny comes with a 36 oz bottle of ketchup and says we have to do this again... so up I went... and used the "Blind and Blast" technique... nail his glasses so he couldnt see... then blast him with Ketchup.... and a tradition was born... as time went on we moved to a 64oz bottle, and crowds of people chanting Ketchup Ketchup Ketchup... news crews coming to film etc... then one day (me being about 235lbs at the time the roof of the 80 Pinto dented.... worried about the sustainability of the roof and wanting to continue the tradition... in the offseason Kenny tore the underside of the Top out and reenforced it with steal... (true Story lol)
as time went on, Mustard and relish and other condiments were brought in and you have the ceremony in its present form...
And that my friends is the rest of the story....
Thanks for the history lesson.
Have never made it for a tailgate (would always attend games with wifey and dad and they were not in tailgating mode) but have had the pleasure of meeting Kenny several times as I was a long time regular to the WNYTBDGPS pre-home opener annual lunch at Nick Tahoe's. Kenny, Jay, Jack, Rich, Rockpile, Aussiew, & Dan Gross were regulars to almost all of them. And there'd usually be a couple others at that. Haven't done one of those in a couple of years as attendance was down a lot post-lockdown.
Never asked Kenny about the origins of the tailgate rituals, but did ask about why he was "Pinto Ron." Knew it was a reporter doing an article that messed up the names. Forgot the guy was from Athlon (is that even still around?). Kenny really is a great guy. Hopefully he gets to another 500 games.
Happy New Year.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I think you're talking about Justice Kagan, who was the Solicitor General of the United States, which is the constitutional office that argues all cases before the Supreme Court. I think that's a little different than a guy who litigated a few minor contract disputes in a local court in Florida ...
She was the Solicitor General for less than 18 months when she joined the SC and had barely been the SG for a full year when she was nominated to the court.
And regardless of how much you say her being a judge prior to joining the SC didn't matter; she had never heard a single case before joining the highest court in the land.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:
Gaetz looks like a villain from a Batman movie. God forbid the Trumpers dare to question one decision from dear leader.
Let's nominate a 2 year practicing lawyer for AG, if the dems hate it it must be the right choice. This is moronic, but predictable.
Were you as upset about 44 nominating as a justice on the Supreme Court a person who had never served as a judge ever before being nominated to the Supreme Court?
-
34 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
It's the smugness of people like McCarthy that lead to Matt freaking Gaetz becoming Attorney General.
I also find it funny that Trump is selecting people that he knows the left will hate.
Regardless of who he chooses, the left will hate on them. Might as well go with the people he expects will do what he hopes they'll do rather than someone that will necessarily work against him.
-
57 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:
This is correct: under the theory espoused by Trump’s team, Harris can declare that there was fraud and refuse to certify.
Of course, that’s an extremely stupid interpretation of the law and an utterly ridiculous idea when given even a second’s thought.
Durn shame that 46 signed into law the Electoral Count Reform Act which defines his VP's duties when certifying the election merely "ministerial" in nature.
And you were SOOOOO close to foiling that wascally Nazi. Would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those durn Congress Critters.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
No one was. It was all fake.
Or, playing devil's advocate, imagine how much bigger 45 would've won the PR vote without the joke. 😉
-
3 minutes ago, Beast said:
I don’t get why this one poll has you thinking the way you are. Trump won Iowa by plus 9 percentage points in 2016 and plus 8 in 2020. There is no way he is losing Iowa. Or even coming close to it.The Atlas poll was recognized as one of the most accurate in the 2020 race and that poll came out yesterday with Trump leading in every battleground state.
Not to mention the Emerson poll that came out yesterday concerning Iowa with Trump up by 10%.
Not to mention, she wildly missed on the 2018 governor's race calling it for the D+3 but it went R+2.
Would want to see her raw data and how it compares to '16 and '20 before getting too excited one way or the other about this single poll.
-
6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:
You've got to be kidding me. If this poll is as accurate as its been since its inception, it's going to be an electoral college landslide victory for Harris.
She's typically accurate. But the one time she flailed wildly was in the D's favor.
-
1
-
-
RIP John.
-
13 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Not sure how fast the mail is where you are but if I dropped a card to be sent to my neighbor in the mailbox down the block, it’s probably going to take at least three days.
Remember that mail in ballots are still verified before they are counted. This is just acknowledging the reality that if mail arrives, it was probably sent at least three days prior.
The issue that people are taking exception to is that according to the article it doesn't matter whether the ballots that arrive late bear a postmark or not.
With no postmark, there is no proof that the ballot was deposited before the election closed. How exactly are you "verifying" the mail in ballots without any postmark? Well, the guy that brought them to us pinky swore and crossed his heart that he knows they were all really put in the mail on time. He has an honest face; surely people with honest faces never lie.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Biden is Mentally Fit said:
This is the last straw for me. Wish I had known about this before casting my vote. Do you think they will let me re-vote?
Does JD Vance and his Asian Indian wife know about this?
THIS could be a true GAME CHANGER.
-
36 minutes ago, K D said:
Is this real? I've been let down by the legal process before. Something like this comes out and then they allow it to continue pending appeal and then it gets overturned etc etc. This would be huge if it sticks. They wouldn't be able to watch the election play out and then come up with extra ballots. But they still could fudge the numbers on the cities where it takes "weeks" to certify
It is real. But, though the Appelate Court reversed the lower court's ruling in part, and vacated it in part, it also remanded the case back to the lower court. And it specifically stated in the decision that "(t)oday’s decision says nothing about remedies."
So, it isn't necessarily the victory it seems from reading that tweet about it.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
^ Dontcha love how Tarheel goes from LOLing at Axios stories to quoting them as "proof" that Kamala was appointed to a nonexistent post?
She was given the responsibility to direct the executive branch's efforts to secure the US's southern border. There is no denying that. People taking issue with the colloquialism going around when that responsibility was given to her by 46 was that she was the "border Czar" seem to be trying to revise history.
It is disingenuous at best to try to claim that she wasn't given that responsibility because she did not officially take on the title of "border Czar" though most all media were using that title to describe her role.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
It probably has been going on longer, but he was deemed fit enough to run again. He's the President, what he says goes. Recent reports are that he wanted to stay badly.
The ultimate goal of any political party is to stay in power. When people started pulling support for him, he made the decision to step away. At the end of the day, it's his call.
Yes, yes it is totally different. Good job!
Having a hard time understanding how it "probably has been going on longer" isn't troublesome. Also, am having a hard time understanding how us, the plebes, not knowing about it until just now isn't more than troubling. The government works for us, or it's supposed to.
Again, not trying to play "gotcha." Am really trying to understand the viewpoint.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
1) Look, the debate was bad. He's not going to be able to debate Trump again. He's not sharp enough anymore. Trump and the Project 2025 agenda have to lose for the good of the country and I don't think he's got it anymore to run.
2) As above, Trumpism will be poison to America. Evil, sadistic, vile ideology.
3) It's been building ever since the debate. No doubt about it. I think Manchin telling him to drop out was the final straw.
4) I wouldn't expect them to come out and say he wasn't. That's a matter of national security. Hell, they kept Trump's Covid diagnosis under wraps until it came out that he was in the hospital.
5) A very good question, and one I am actually working on in my head. I imagine he has a strong cabinet to fall back on for daily work, but he doesn't want the stress of campaigning again.
6) He doesn't have it anymore to run and beat Trump. It's unfortunate but it's reality. He's old and isn't as sharp as he once was.
Thank you very much for the answers. A follow up, you seem to have misunderstood Q3, apologies for not being more clear. The question wasn't about whether there's been pressure on 46 to step down prior to the debate. Whether there was a little push for him to leave or not, the vast majority of D's and their usual supporters did not publicly push for him to leave prior to the debate. That is not in question. The question was whether you believe he's not been sharp enough since before the debate or if something snapped in him at the debate but he was quite acute prior to the debate?
This was either a rapid mental descent we've witnessed over the past 3 weeks (which IMHO doesn't seem likely); or it's been going on much longer and the media, who are often our agents to interact with those in the government, have not been acting as agents for us as they have been hiding this from us.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Our guy dropped out. An incredible act of humility and putting the country first. Something your side has no idea about.
So sorry your plans to stick Trans people in concentration camps is on hold.
A few questions, if you would be so kind as to answer. (And these go out to all the people that were supporting 46 3 weeks ago.)
1. WHY is he dropping out? Would sincerely like to know your opinion on why as you do seem to be solidly a Democrat.
2. How is this putting the country first? The Democratic Party's voters overwhelmingly choose him to be their nominee for President this year.
And, if the replies to the above questions are that you don't believe he's currently capable of running for President or you don't believe he's capable of serving as President for another 4 years, a couple of follow up Q's.
3. Do you believe that something snapped in him that Thursday evening or recently prior to it; or is this something that has been building for a long time?
4. If it wasn't a rapidly declining problem, do you have any concerns about the general mass media and those in his inner circle claiming that he was fine or even better than fine until (and for some even beyond) that Thursday evening? There was a lot of media talk that 46 would whip 45 handily in the debate as 46 was/is very sharp. It doesn't seem that 46 won that debate against 45.
5. If he isn't capable of running for President, should he also step down as the President?
6. Why should he / shouldn't he step down?
Thank you for considering the questions. Expect they might come across as "gotchas" but they really aren't intended that way. Am very interested in understanding this view. 🍺
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said:
The shooter has three phones, is able to walk around the site undeterred for at least an hour before hand, has a drone in the air the day of the event, is able to get a ladder to the side of the building, is able to bring a rifle up the building, and able to set up for several minutes, and then get off 8 shots before being stopped, but you think the SS does not have one traitor in the ranks? Do you believe Epstein killed himself also?
The bit about the ladder seems to be untrue. He apparently climbed atop an AC unit to reach a low roof adjacent to the building he was on when he took the shots at the former President. Haven't heard enough details about the other items in your post to determine whether they are accurate or not. But the ladder bit appears to not be.
-
On 7/5/2024 at 1:24 PM, BillsFanNC said:
🎯
The Media is Not Doing its Job
@chamath breaks down the viral "sharp as a tack" clip:
"Six minutes of 100 spokespeople and proxies, and they all had the same thing to say about President Biden, which is, 'He is sharp as a tack.'"
"If I asked 100 people on the street, 'What do you think of @elonmusk?' You'd have 100 different statements. There be a general theme, but you would not have even 50 people repeat the exact same words."
"You have this funny situation where 100 different people were basically saying the exact same talking point.
So it's not even a point of view. It was just something that they were told to say by somebody else."
"And that is the real issue: you don't really have an honest media here. So there is no check and balance on power right now."
Hopefully all the events of these past couple of weeks will get people to realize it isn't that the MSM is truthful or not and that it isn't whether the "alternative" media is truthful or not. It's that this isn't Walter Cronkite's media or even Tim Russert's media anymore. None of them see themselves as needing to speak hard truth and ask hard questions of ALL politicians. (Well, almost none of them. Catherine Herridge and a few others will investigate a story regardless of where it takes them, but those are few and far between.) They now have their own favorite politicians and they will try to carry water for them and they'll be tough on politicians that are opponents of their favorites. (And this goes for bureaucrats as well.)
You just have to understand who each is running interference for: FOX - RNC; CNN - DNC; MSNBC - progressive D's; OAN - Trump wing of R's; NYT - State Department; WAPO - IC; WSJ - RNC. Etc, etc.
Listen to whomever you want, but understand they're going to slant the news to best serve their OWN interests. If the reporters of today were around in biblical times, when Jesus hopped out of the fishing boat and walked to shore there would've been 2 primary stories: 1. Jesus walks on water; and 2. Jesus can't swim. They're both ostensibly true, but the reader of one's reporting gets a better understanding of the event than the reader of the other's reporting.
And, a LOT of times, you can find the primary sources that were the basis of the articles. Track them down yourself and reach your own conclusion of what just happened.
And when you catch them in a lie, ask yourself, what else might they have been lying about. Check out the stories from multiple angles and realize sometimes one or the other is telling the truth and the other is lying; but a lot of the time, the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Except of course when 90% of them are all using the EXACT SAME WORDS, it which case you have a pretty good idea of what ISN'T the truth.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, 4th&long said:
Yes because this is the only message board our social media sit on earth. I wasn’t on here first. It started with my bro on the phone, first thing he said was this was going to unite the right, trump just won.
some of that also came from no one reporting anyone was shot behind him, which I now know they were. But reporters were right there, they didn’t see it and report it? That was on tv before I got on here. They stood him straight up and exposed him which I thought was crazy.
So, your brother's comment is what triggered you to "run" here and post that you believed the assasination attempt to have been staged? You really truly do come across as a "special" individual.
-
2
-
1
-
DOGE
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Imagine how much better off we'd be as a society if the basics of finance were required to be taught in middle and HS. So many people are absolutely clueless which makes it real easy for politicians to say stuff that sounds good but has no basis in reality whatsoever.
And people really need to understand that every $ government spends is a tax. It's either paid today via direct (and indirect) tax payments or tomorrow via debt. But either way, it eventually ends up due to be paid and it is all a tax.