Does the Taliban really want Russia involved in Afghanistan again? I mean I won’t complain if this devolves into them fighting each other like in the 80s, but…
If I’m not mistaken Russia was fighting the Mujahideen during their Afghan war in the 80s. The Taliban then rose inside Afghanistan killing Mujahideen leaders and taking over Afghanistan in the late 1990s. So one could say the Taliban succeeded where Russia failed.
It’s a source talking to the NYT. If these were journalists with a long track record of deception, then I would raise questions, but the NYT is generally decent.
Anon sources are totally cool, but only if they’re being cited by someone that is trustworthy.
If these were journalists with a long track record of deception
Yes.
the NYT is generally decent.
I had a good laugh, thanks!
Anonymous sources aren’t totally cool, they are the absolute bottom of the barrel of journalism.
They should absolutely not be used for opinion, and normally need to be backed up by third party evidence.
The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source when sourcing is anonymous. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. […] We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information.
The New York Times and Frontline report that an Iraqi general witnessed the Iraqi military training Arab fighters to hijack airplanes. Mother Jones later reports general to be bogus Chalabi plant
The reporter is the third party who confirms the evidence, either by finding corroboration with another source or who knows enough about the source to know if they could have that knowledge.
This does require reporter to be trustworthy, but that is true about anyone who provides evidence.
That is not true of anyone who provides evidence in the sense that non anonymous sources can be verified by third parties. That’s precisely why anonymous sources are considered the bottom of the barrel of journalism.
I don’t trust WikiLeaks, I trust the cryptography behind DKIM. I did in fact verify some of those cryptographic signatures myself. And you can too if you’d like, because the source material was published in full.
You are either with us, or you’re with the terrorists - gmtom - George W. Bush
Are the MAGA under your bed too? Liberals are the worst, you people are so brainwashed that you can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t think like you isn’t to the right of you.
The alternative to you being to the right of us is that you’re to the left of us, but are too stupid to see that you’re being played by the Republicans. Their plan for the next 4 years is an utter dismantling of the government and rebuilding it in the Conservative image. So, which are you. Invested in the Right, or too stupid to see you’re playing right into the Right’s hands?
Clue bus for everyone who thinks this idiot is correct.
Anonymous sources are definitely the least reliable source, and if you can get someone to stake their name and reputation on a claim, you much rather do that than use an anonymous source. However, anonymous sources do have their place in journalism!
Had Edward Snowden kept his name secret, he might well have escaped his fate of being forced to live in Russia. Had Julian Assange not revealed his name, he might be back in Australia or somewhere else besides a British jail. Anonymous sources exist to allow information to be passed to reporters when that information is either confidential or sensitive, or could put the source at risk. Generally, if you want to use an anonymous source, you need to meet the following requirements:
The source must have first-hand knowledge and evidence of what’s being revealed.
The information is high-value and cannot be obtained in any other manner.
The source has legitimate and compelling reasons why they will remain anonymous.
Anonymous sources are clearly identified as such without revealing their identity.
Other safetyguards may be used.
Rather than the reputation of the source, you use the reputation of the reporting media. Granted, there’s been a lot of BS peddled by the Media of late, and so it’s hard, and sometimes you have to be a bit more discerning that you might have back in the day. Do you trust NYT? That’s up to you. I do. Ghostalmedia does. But the useful idiot/trumper wildbus doesn’t. You’ll have to make up your own mind.
I’ll point this out. There’s no way Biden can be knocked out of the running now. In January, one of two things will happen. Either Biden will take the oath of office, or Trump will. No amount of third parties or other nonsense will change that (because we don’t have RCV, 51 Lefties can lose to 49 Righties if 3 Lefties vote for Jill Stein and 48 vote Joe Biden, and that’ll remain the same if 48 vote Jill Stein and 3 vote Joe Biden). Read Project 2025 and know this is the framework for Trump’s first day in office if he wins, and decide: Is your single issue important enough to let Trump into office? If so, go ahead and vote for the distraction object. Just know you’re doing the DUMB thing and will suffer for that choice. We warned you in 2016 and you didn’t listen. It’s up to you if you will listen to us in 2020.
I unfortunately live in Florida. Florida Power and Light took over, and everyone hates it. People are getting power bills for thousands of dollars. They sent out a newsletter right after the takeover saying that prices would go up temporarily and then be lower than they were before. Still waiting for that price drop. I try to tell the MAGAs that FPL is one of DeSantis’s major campaign contributors, but the most reasonable reply I got is “well it would probably be even worse if the democrats were doing it.” I’m so tired of everything.
This whole thing of calling people on the phone and shouting questions like this at the ones of them who answer, and then reporting the result as if it was news relevant to how the election will turn out, is absurd.
It’s literally on par with calling people and asking them if they’re planning to get the flu this year, and then reporting that as a public health study.
last time i checked Biden isn't the President of Gaza.. Biden doesn't "handle" Gaza.. he is "handling" the United States of America the way it should be handled.. fuck Gaza, fuck Israel.. they can all kill each other, that's all they know how to do.. they can take each other back to the Bronze Age if that's what they want, i don't give a fuck..
That’s a massive blunder. There is about 0 chance the Cons are serious about finding “alternative plans” for climate policy. If they were, they wouldn’t be asking the likes of Danielle “blanket ban on renewables” Smith and Doug “let’s just develop the greenbelt” Ford for their ideas. Furthermore, if they think this tax is too much of an imposition on Canadians, then that rules out essentially all other forms of climate action, because the tax is one of the most conservative policies possible.
I’m not saying the carbon tax is perfect by any means, but up to the present, nobody opposed to it has been able to come up with a better idea, or even much of a coherent argument against it. I don’t know what the NDP are gaining from this deal, but I can’t see it being worth all the trust and credibility they had to concede.
Their ploy could be to let the Conservatives show that they have zero alternative ideas, and then present their own alternatives that just aren’t called a Carbon tax.
Biden doesn’t support genocide. He supports Israel’s right to exist, and thinks that they have a right to defend themselves. And even he is saying Israel must start respecting the laws of war or lose US support. You know what Trump said? “Finish the problem”. Even on this stupid level, you should be voting Biden because Trump is worse.
So, no, stupid person or Trump plant. That’s not how my logic works.
He is materially supporting the genocide. Even you bounce between describing this genocide as “Israel’s right to exist” and apologizing for Biden by citing his empty theatrical handwringing over Israel’s obvious crimes.
Edit: Honestly, which is it? Is Israel “fighting a just war”, or is it " going too far"? If it’s “going too far” as Biden is hinting, where and when specifically has it gone too far? More to the point, if Biden doesn’t take concrete steps to rein Israel in, what actual difference is there between Biden admin policy and Trump’s statement of “finish the job”?
sigh. Why do I even bother. Oh right, because if I don’t, other LIVs will listen to you and buy the bullshit you’re selling to weaken Biden and strengthen Trump. So here we go.
Biden is caught between the rock of supporting Israel despite their atrocious behaviours in Gaza and the hard place of either leaving Israel open to being destroyed by other Middle Eastern nations, or allowing Russia to bring Israel into BRICS as part of the anti-USA counter-movement in Russia’s and China’s desired ‘multi-polar’ world (and read that to mean the USA is ground under heal and now Russia and China are the new USA, because that’s exactly what it means).
Making the hard place even harder is the fact that if Biden were to cancel support for Israel tonight, I guaranfuckingtee you that by tomorrow, Russian-amplified Republican propaganda will be screaming to every person they can reach tomorrow the news that “Biden is an antisemitic puppet for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and every other Islamofascist nation in the Middle East and let innocent Jews die at the hands of the evil Hamas!!!” That could cost him more votes than not giving in to you lot of shitheads calling him a genocidal maniac and losing your votes.
It’s NEVER as simple as you lot make it out to be. International politics is nasty, and sometimes, you don’t get what you want. But Biden’s willing to entertain threatening Israel with a reduction of aid. Trump won’t be, and that’s on top of every other horrible thing he’s outright stated he’s going to do. Your blathering over how Biden is killing Muslims over there is going to get a metric fuckton of Muslims, Gays, Minorities, and even Liberals killed here in this fucking country.
So, stupid person or Trump plant, it’s STILL not clear why you should vote for anyone else than Biden unless you want Trump to win.
I don’t know why you bother either. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself. I can’t imagine the cognitive dissonance you are laboring under. You have to come up with wild theories that you pass off as some kind of sober ‘realpolitik’, which you paint as inevitable if Biden were to do literally anything to stop enabling Israel’s “atrocious behaviours”. The road to hell is littered with discarded principles. It blows my mind that you are angrier at people like me, than at the state of political leadership in the US. The fact that you can call me a “LIV”, “stupid person” or “trump plant” rather than understand that mine is a valid point of view, that I’ve come to based on my own experiences leaves me wondering how you come to such conclusions. You don’t know if or how I vote, and none of what I have said is even relevant to that. Anyway, I suspect your country isn’t really a democracy either, so I guess ultimately neither of our opinions much matter.
You morally should vote as effectively as you can EVERY TIME. EVERY vote on the left moves the conversation left.
What you’re advocating is a disastrous take, and you’re falling for classic voter suppression tactics. If you vote for Trump he backs Israel AND Russia. If you don’t vote at all, or throw away your vote, you’re helping politics move towards the right. It’s like a game of tug of war and you’re giving up before it starts.
Rush said it best “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”
This is what I can’t stand about these “I will not vote for Biden” Neanderthals. They’re not making a point by abstaining; they’re indirectly aiding Trump while pretending they have the moral high ground.
I used to be them in my youth. They think it’s like the free market: if I don’t buy any spaghetti sauce because I don’t like classic or meaty then eventually someone will fill the gap and get me the chunky sauce I’ve been wanting. Unfortunately that simply doesn’t work in politics.
Once you see it for what it is, a game of tug of war, you realise that you have to play everytime. Even if the current leader doesn’t want to go as far as you want every step in the right direction is a victory in itself. It also shifts the center for the next election. You get what you want through steadfast victories over time not through instant change towards an ideal world.
If only they understood the reality of having a FPTP electoral system with only two viable parties.
In a more sane system where every vote actually mattered, by all means, vote for someone else or abstain. But in this current system, 30% of the population could vote third party, and that third party might not even get a single seat. Each and every one of those hypothetical votes which ultimately didn’t matter could have went towards pushing away an insurrectionist lunatic.
One of two people will win the election in November. Biden or Trump. If you want Biden to lose, you want Trump to win. And if you want Trump to win, you want my wife to suffer (she’s a Black bisexual gamer nerd gal)… And we can’t be friends.
No? Xbox might not be in the greatest place right now, but it's a far cry from where Sega was when they discontinued the Dreamcast. Yeah, Microsoft stepped on a lot of rakes with the Xbox One, but it wasn't a Saturn-style disaster and Microsoft is still doing well enough to buy out a major game publisher.
For some, the conflagration 6,000 miles away has already changed their vote, edging out domestic concerns such as the economy, inflation and crime. Others say that the war in the Middle East, which has already cost thousands of lives and has a region on the brink of famine, mirrors other tragedies afflicting people of color — and that Biden’s support for what they see as a moral disaster should have consequences at the ballot box.
Where these voters ultimately land could play an outsize role in who occupies the White House next year. Pennsylvania is one of a handful of battleground states that both Republicans and Democrats see as pivotal to winning the presidency. In 2020, Biden won the state by just over 80,000 votes, including a 4-to-1 ratio in heavily Black Philadelphia. But there are signs that the coalition that elected him is fragmenting.
But as the Gaza war has raged on, Biden and other Democrats have faced protesters at virtually all of their public events, over the Palestinian death toll. In Scranton on Tuesday, after Biden gave a campaign speech on tax policy, the president’s motorcade was met by protesters chanting, “Biden Biden, you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide,” and “Welcome home, Scranton Joe — make sure Gazans have a home also.” Demonstrators also shouted at Biden as he visited his childhood home.
About 9 in 10 Black voters in Pennsylvania and other key states picked Biden over Trump in 2020, according to exit polls and comparable surveys, but a March Wall Street Journal poll of voters in seven swing states found that 68 percent of Black registered voters would “definitely” or “probably” vote for Biden in the 2024 election, while 20 percent said they were likely to vote for Trump. Numerous national and state polls this year have found similar results.
In 2015, she and other founding members of Black Lives Matter issued a statement of solidarity with Palestinians. “We don’t have to take a lesser-of-two-evils approach,” Abdullah said. “Lesser of two evils is still evil.”
didn’t read the article, but to answer the headline: no.
xbox is backed by Microsoft, one of the biggest companies on the planet. if xbox was going to go away, it would have happened during the Xbox one lifecycle, in my opinion.
msn.com
Top