Taro T

That's the stated reason for why 44's administration in general and 46 in particular wanted him gone. The fact he was investigating Burisma for corruption and then that investigation ended after he was removed was purely coincidental, right?

Then you should be happy as SoS Rubio who now directs USAID said that's exactly what he plans to do. Keep the actual charitable work open and shut down the grift that doesn't align with US Foreign Policy.

Or the cognitive dissonance it creates hits a little too close to home.

In NYS the mandates to get the latest boosters to attend a state university weren't lifted until shortly after classes begain in September 2022. Thanks, Kathy. (Hoping there aren't a lot of myocarditis injuries courtesy of that little gift to our students.) Pretty much the rest of the country had gotten rid of mandates by then, but not NYS. Of course, NYS also had the mandates requiring nursing homes to accept residents with Covid back into them until almost the end of May 2020 and was asking retired (aka those individuals most at risk of death should they get infected) doctors and nurses to come back to work in the Spring of 2020 to help alleviate the workload of the healthcare workers early in the crisis.

Far more likely an accidental lab leak. Which was then run with because in the words of Rahm Emanuel "never let a crisis go to waste." Makes extremely little sense for the CCP to intentionally release the virus into their own populace rather than in a foreign nation if they were releasing it intentionally. (And it could EASILY be released into a foreign nation via a scientist from the lab being "accidentally" infected and then immediately traveling to an international conference held somewhere else or from a worker in the lab "accidentally" getting infected then immediately traveling internationally for vacation or whatever. And they did quite a number on Italy via essentially that route; but well after they were already dealing with the crisis domestically.) Yeah, China has a demographic problem as they have a very large elderly population relative to the overall population, but can't believe their leadership saw releasing a manufactured virus into their own population (and literally in the same city the lab that sure seems to have created the virus is located) as being the solution to that problem. Occam's razor says accidental lab release is most likely.

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.

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.

She's not wrong.

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.)

Likely more accurately: Medal of Freedom now included with every thank you letter for a 7 figure donation.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Or, playing devil's advocate, imagine how much bigger 45 would've won the PR vote without the joke. 😉

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.

She's typically accurate. But the one time she flailed wildly was in the D's favor.

RIP John.

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.

Does JD Vance and his Asian Indian wife know about this? THIS could be a true GAME CHANGER.

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.

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.

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.