LumRaiderFan

Another mamdani hire.

From the article:

"A massive abuse of taxpayer dollars not only occurred under President Biden’s watch, but was effectively incentivized by his administration’s failure to implement strong financial controls resulting in billions worth of potential improper payments," HUD Secretary Scott Turner said in a statement provided to the Post.

"HUD will continue investigating the shocking results and will take appropriate action to hold bad actors accountable," he said. "Additionally, the Department is advancing efforts made under President Trump’s first administration to strengthen program integrity and ensure taxpayer-funded assistance serves the vulnerable communities it was intended for."

10 minutes ago, Reagan said:

True!  Because an influencer can never be right!  Right?!

What’s sad is that the mainstream media are nothing more than influencers.

1 hour ago, Porter said:

Is that Mila Joy?

We’re gonna need another source to verify that the doors are locked and no kids are there.

12 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I didn't say that.

Was replying to LRF about the personal attacks and violations in this forum and he suggesting the mods handle the business better.

To be clear, you brought up the personal attacks and I said I couldn’t do anything about that, only moderators could, I wasn’t calling for more stringent control.

For the most part, I have no problem with the job the moderators do here, it’s a fairly hands off approach, with only a few that I can recall that were removed, by their own doing.

5 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

But my point was it didn't matter to those on the right where this subject came from. It was something that supported that side, came from a MAGA supporter so therefore all of you guys took it as truth. Not one of you (other than baddog) cared to verify the data. You had no motivation to verify the data because that supports what you support. Just said prove it wrong. 

Even some said it didn't matter if Elmer Fudd posted the data. 

I am betting that had a lefty posted, some of you would have provided many sources to either verify or dispute. You would not have taken their word.

All I am saying, let's not be so blind. How about posting real sources and not leftwing or rightwing social media influencers.

It’s funny that DCT made post after post after post that was simply AI generated with no sources and not a peep from you or anyone else, which is fine, don’t need the help, lol.

Thanks for proving my point again, if us rightys disagree with a post, we post rebuttals.

It seems you only get involved in something like this when it’s a Reagan post, never ever seen you challenge some of the ridiculous posts from the leftys.

As a moderator, either be fair or simply stay out of it.

5 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

But who is saying the data is wrong?

Maybe she is a blind hog that found an acorn.

I just think the subject matter would have more credibility than coming from a social media influencer (self titled btw). The "influencer" part is what sticks out to me. They don't really want to educate, just influence.

Thanks for proving my point, she could be right.

Look at the information being posted and critique that before simply dismissing the source.

I’m not sure why this is so hard.

10 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

No, undocumented immigrants (often called "illegals") are not eligible for federal SNAP (food stamp) benefits; federal law prohibits them from receiving these benefits, though their U.S. citizen children may qualify for assistance within mixed-status households, and recent legislation (

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

) further restricted 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 immigrants' access too. SNAP eligibility focuses on U.S. citizens, nationals, and qualified legal permanent residents, with strict rules and waiting periods for many non-citizens, while state-funded programs or other benefits (like emergency Medicaid for health) might cover some ineligible groups. 

Problem solved, they’re not eligible.

3 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Well, if through limited research Porter has determined that she’s pretty accurate sometimes, that oughta be good enough for everyone I guess. You’re falling back on the same “it’s up to other people to prove random stuff that’s posted on Twitter wrong” argument again. If her numbers are correct, Reagan should be able to find a real source for them. Or more importantly, why didn’t she post the source herself? 

So which news sources would you consider a REAL source?  Why is it that some “random” lady couldn’t possibly know the facts about something.

And you are wrong, if a post is made and you think it’s wrong, don’t simply bash the source, provide evidence that it is wrong. 
 

1 hour ago, AggiesAreWe said:

But the person who created this thread claimed the data was factual.

Reagan's reply to someone asking who was Mila Joy, "The one stating the facts!"

So what you are saying is folks like Reagan post threads just to get discussion going, regardless if the subject of the thread is factual.

Got it.

Not sure why we need that kind of discussion here.

I guess I should be used to Reagan flooding the forum with the opinion pieces from the right.

This place is getting very depressing.

Reagan can make his own argument and IF they weren’t facts, simply dispute them with the real facts.

There are several things that could depress me, but a sports forum (even being the best one ), ain’t one of them, lol.

9 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

I was waiting to see how long it took for those who said they didn’t trust a single source—or the government—for data, to realize the X post was partially created using government data.

Truth can come from any source, as can misinformation.

I think most posts are made for discussion, not necessarily to claim without a doubt they are 100% accurate.

Back to my original point, the debate shouldn’t end just because someone doesn’t like the source.

18 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I meant is it a big deal on who that guy hired? 

Should we be surprised?

Not much surprises me when it comes to democrats, but I gotta admit, this one did a little bit.

I never expected New Yorkers to embrace government dependency so much as to vote someone like this in, and he was very honest upfront about his intentions.

52 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

New York elected the man.

That's what they get.

Is this a big deal?

That the largest city in the US elected a democratic socialist (communist) as their mayor is a very big deal.  Soon we’re gonna see just how big.

Remember all the dimwits that were surprised at the direction biden took the country, same folks will be shocked, once again.

4 minutes ago, Porter said:

No kidding. Look at all the media and government officials that pushed the Russia Hoax and no one of any importance that has been held accountable. Smh

Yep, and the covid lies.

8 minutes ago, UT alum said:

So? The pretty skirt Trump used to attempte Comey’s isn’t a prosecutor. Why should unfamiliarity with a job bother you?

No comment on Mamdani’s pick, you know, what the thread is about.

Every response of yours is about Trump, no matter what.

And from the guy that hates whataboutisms, lol.

14 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I hear ya.

Maybe reagan should have posted that data from a verified media source/govt. entity instead of a social media influencer. You know, those folks that try to INFLUENCE people. lol

Not sure there is such a thing as a single verified source that I would trust, certainly not one from the government or mainstream media.

There are lots of folks on social media that provide solid information backed up by research that lots of folks haven’t heard of.

2 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

See, that's the thing. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the data. Could very much be true and likely pretty close. (see baddog's post above).

I just don't get how some here take it as truth just because they agree with it or it supports their side or comes from anyone on their side.

Until baddog's post, no one was willing to verify Mila Joy. You guys liked that it came from "one of yours" so therefore no reason to dispute,

That's my point.

Just because someone doesn’t challenge a post doesn’t mean they necessarily  agree with it, not enough time in the day.

How would verifying who Mila Joy is validate or disqualify hard numbers?

Argue the content, not the source.

5 minutes ago, Porter said:

I don’t disagree with you but if the source bothers you then do some research and enlighten us all. 
 

This is an opinion platform. Whatever is posted is a good starting point for an individual to do their own research if they are curious enough to know if it is true. Left or Right everyone should do their own verification.

Agree 100%, been saying this forever.

Don’t agree with a post, prove it wrong instead of wagging your finger at the source.

16 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I guess my point is has this forum come to the fact that one can post anything from anyone and it's assumed to be fact depending on which side of the fence one stands on?

When this forum starts posting data from someone who is just a wife/mom/MAGA/Trump supporter and that's it? Then I personally believe this forum has gone to "you know what". Same would be the case if it were opposite.

I have spoke to a few folks (both sides) over the last several months that used to post down here that have chosen not to just because it's nothing but personal attacks and bogus, nothing but opinion based data from very one sided sources.

I think this forum could be better and actually was better.

Sad to see it come to this.

No one has said take something for facts simply because they post it, that’s what you said.

I simply said don’t dismiss a post simply because you don’t know or like the source.

That’s sad.

Go to the trouble of looking into yourself and if you can prove it false, great.

And as far as the personal attacks, that’s nothing I can fix, that falls to the moderators.

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

No really, post valid data that actually counters Reagan’s post.

3 minutes ago, Porter said:

Personally I don’t care if Elmer Fudd posted these statistics. If they are indeed true that’s very disturbing. 

Exactly right, even the National Enquirer scooped big stories, Rush Limbaugh, Tiger Woods and John Edwards.

It’s easier to dismiss the source if you can’t dispute the information.

17 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Who is Mila Joy?

Doesn’t matter, if these aren’t facts, prove it.