Skip Navigation

Posts
31
Comments
1,265
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Evidence has been presented to you which you are ignoring for the sake of your own narrative. You are so obsessed with your political agenda that you can not admit that your "opponent" might be right for once. The average price of the eggs he is standing in front of is $4.10. Vances' statement about the price of eggs is 100% accurate.

    Regardless, the story is not about the price of eggs. The story is about a political candidate making remarks about policy which may or may not have impacted the price of eggs and other consumer goods. These specific remarks are a mixed bag as the price of eggs are impacted more by disease and the price of other goods were not impacted by the Inflation Reduction Act.

    I don't understand how people are so blinded by their politics that they twist reality to turn the truth into fiction. You are disseminating "fake news" and deepening the divide between us.

    This is exactly what's wrong with us. When one side makes a claim that the other side sees very clearly to be false then we attack each other over something (a meme) that's whole irrelevant to our lives. We should be discussing inflation. Because clearly, not enough people have a clue about how it works. We should be discussing this candidates claim that an Act of Congress caused the price of consumer goods to increase. Is that true or is it not? What is it that this administration has actually done?

    This is what should guide us at the polls and in our political discourse, not if a quick glance at the price of eggs in one store in one part of one state is accurate to the dollar or not.

  • Quote: "now a dozen eggs will cost you around four dollars thanks to Kamala Harris' inflationary policies".
    Checks source: Average cost $4.10.

    Edit: I’ve updated this post to reflect the point of it being posted in News.

    The problem? When footage of the visit emerged, Vance was quickly called out by viewers who spotted the price tag of a dozen eggs behind him was actually $2.99.

    – Vance is being called out for saying eggs cost around $4 while standing in front of eggs that costs $3 when in fact the average cost for eggs he is standing in front of is $4.10.

    I hate that this is the bullshit we spend our time arguing over.

  • I edited my comment with an image of the source since you didn't care to look for yourself.

  • How did you get to that part while ignoring the preceding sentence?

    Here’s a link to the video I presume this trash article is referring to https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1837581418329002260 You can see, like every grocery store I’ve ever been to, a number of different prices for eggs, including at least three for $4.99 and one for $3.99.

    Every store has eggs tagged at different prices depending on what kind they are. If you look quickly and see more signs that start with $4 than $2, would you say eggs are $2.99 or "around $4"?

    I'm really amazed at the ignorance, be it willful or not, all Americans are capable of.

    I mean... all you had to do was look.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Awesome. Thank you for that!!

  • This story is absolutely trash. Here's a link to the video I presume this trash article is referring to https://x.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1837581418329002260 You can see, like every grocery store I've ever been to, a number of different prices for eggs, including at least three for $4.99 and one for $3.99.

    EDIT: Here's the photo op since some people prefer to comment on headlines rather than source material.


    The average price of visible price tags is $4.10. Though I still argue that the literal price tag on these eggs is far from the relevant point of his words. Arguing over the average value in the background of an image is wholly irrelevant to a politician making claims about policy.

    The take away from this video shouldn't be hurdur the tag says $2.99 but the discussion of his claim about "Kamala Harris' inflationary policies" and "because she cast a deciding vote on the Inflation Explosion Act". At least, that's what a reputably news organization would give a shit about discussing.

    This article from PBS quotes Alex Arnon, an economic and budget analyst for the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, “We can say with pretty strong confidence that it was mostly other factors that have brought inflation down,’’ he said. “The IRA has just not been a significant factor.’’

    This bit from Wiki says "the benefits of the Act will likely not be felt before the 2024 election, but that the Act is a great long-term strategy to decouple from volatile energy markets that drive inflation and that the Act will reduce inflation over the medium to long-term."

    The Inflation Reduction Act actually had very little to do with inflation or the price of eggs. The price of eggs has been mostly dictated by disease and the need to slaughter millions of birds.

    Moreover, I understand the (under/misinformed) complaint people have about rising egg prices as it pertains to kitchen table economics. However, from the perspective of what we're putting into our bodies and paying people a fair wage to do honest work, we should be complaining that eggs are too cheap.

    Of all things, it continues to shock me how inexpensive eggs are. I've been paying $5-$7 for a dozen eggs from local producers for about ten years. They're noticeably more delicious, it's less impactful to the environment, the chickens are far less prone to disease, I assume the chickens are healthier and have a better diet, my dollars go towards a local economy not some billion dollar corporation on the other side of the country.

  • Trumpism

    is different than Trump the president.

    The presidential actions taken by President Reagan are different than the choices Americans are making to endorse and follow Trump. It's the actions Reagan took as president that have in large part brainwashed the public and created the environment where people are flocking towards people like Trump.

    Trump the president is a symptom of the problems created by Reagan, Stone, Cheney, and the Heritage Foundation. Trump the brand is the epitome of Reaganomics and corporatocracy.

    Reagan set the seeds for dismantling our trust in government and putting it into corporations and celebrities. Reagan (the actor?!) is the prime modern-time example of the people ignoring politics in favor of celebrity.

    I would argue that Reagan's influence and GOP brainwashing far surpasses Trump's to the point that the vast majority of people in this country are wholly unaware of its existence. Though, yes, the extremism that Trumpism has fostered is certainly more dangerous to the public and democracy. I just don't blame Trump for all of it. America chose to elect him president for a reason. I believe that has more to do with Reagan than with Trump.

  • Right, in hindsight, as far as actual policy and actions taken as president, Reagan is the worst in modern times. We wouldn't have Bush or Trump or Project 2025 without Reagan.

    If you were to remove everything around 9/11 and Iraq from Bush's presidency, he's relatively okay as both president and person. He, arguably, did great things to help immigrants and minorities and children. Not sure how No Child Left Behind is seen these days. I think Bush did more to help the disadvantaged than Clinton. But, to really assess each and every action a president takes would require a college semester. And your perspective on good or bad may be influenced by what you believe the job of government is. Reagan's entire pitch and lasting legacy as a Republican icon was to dismantle the federal government, eliminate "social" programs, put "bad people" in jail, promote corporatocracy, fool the middle class to believe in the trickle down effect. Not to mention the entire Iran Contra ordeal. I mean, we don't have super solid evidence about Trump's associations with foreign countries / leaders. Trump's probably too stupid and narcissistic to care about anything other than opening Trump buildings and golf courses in other countries.

    Trump's worst actions as president were his judicial appointments. He's easily the worst person to hold the office as president in all of US history, but as far as worst president in modern times, I think Regan has it over on him.

  • Depends on what "recent" memory is for you. I've got Reagan and Trump neck-and-neck. While Bush should be tried for war crimes, he's nowhere close to as bad as Trump. I'd put Bush and Clinton in the cage match.

  • I'd venture to guess that the dude has just checked out from politics and world events entirely.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • authorities believe the shooting targeted one of the people who was killed, possibly in a murder-for-hire. A vehicle pulled up and "multiple shooters" got out and began firing, then fled the scene, he said.

    As someone who lives in Philadelphia, these are usually the kinds of stories that get ignored. Targeted shootings have little to no threat on the general population. This sort of event happens at least once a month around here, if not once a week.

    What's most surprising about this story is the source. I would have thought this was a local paper. Apparently this VOA organization has been around since the '40s?

  • That's a perfect response to enforce my observation that people no longer have the sense of what words mean.

  • But isn’t so much journalism nowadays characterised by unsubstantiated speculation

    No, by definition, a billion percent NO. I don’t understand how words have lost their meaning today.

    your criticism amounts essentially to your dislike of the thesis of this piece.

    Show me one word that criticizes “the thesis” of the piece. I have not. In fact, I think it’s well written and thought provoking (in the same vein as a 9/11 or UFO theory is). I have argued, not that an argument should need to be made because /reality/ and /definitions of words/, that it is a random person with no journalistic credentials making, and admitting to, unsubstantiated claims based on guesses and supposes. This, by definition, is not journalism - nor NEWS.

    Dude. There is nothing wrong with the fucking article other than it is not fucking news.

    How broken are people? Is it the fox newses that have broken you? TikTok? Reddit? Twitter? Do people have some false belief that armchair speculation, random ideas and theories with no source to back it up, is fucking NEWS?

    Furthermore, the rules of this forum require a link be from an actual news source. This is not.

  • MacGyver
    The Secret City
    Mr. Wizard

    Great question. I could list dozens of shows that were favorites, or have special meaning to me, or that I watched the most, or ones that had a more longterm impact on who I am. But, specifically about impacting my world as a young person, I'll say these three.

    Honorable mentions: Looney Tunes, Cheers, MASH, Family Ties, The Young Ones, Doctor Who, You Can't Do That on Television, Ren and Stimpy.

  • I wasn't upset at all until people started claiming that the unsubstantiated speculations by some irrelevant person is the same as world news.

    It's a great thought provoking piece of work. It's just not news.

    It's fine. If the rules of this forum are no longer relevant, I just won't subscribe to it anymore. The internet sucks.

  • What’s the difference between an opinion section and what you deem “speculative conspiracy theories”?

    That's wholly irrelevant. If you want to be an investigative reporter and get real facts to report, have at it and post it as news. You have not done this. You are making guesses. Guesses, by someone with no qualifications or influence, are not news.

    Anything spoken / written by a political leader is news. If you were someone who influenced millions of people, your opinion would be news.

    If I sat down and wrote out a blog about how I believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated, would that be News? I mean, I guess you would argue that it is but I am telling you, by definition, it most certainly is not.

    I don't know what makes you believe your armchair speculation is NEWS. The disconnect is so vast that my brain is breaking. I don't understand how people on this earth have chosen to ignore the definition of words to suit their own narrative and feelings.

  • OP has written an article speculating how explosives could have been inserted into pagers. It’s not news, it’s speculation. Speculation is not news, it’s opinion.

  • Someone reporting news. OP is NOT reporting news. They are speculating. This is an opinion piece. They’re a fine writer and thinker but not a journalist and not reporting factual news.

  • News outlets very specifically include sections such as Opinion. They do not include speculative conspiracy theories on the front page (or anywhere) labeled as News.