GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 21 19, 7:04 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2759 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 272, 273, 274, 275, 276  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: August 26 19, 7:27 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
GeddyWrox wrote:
Abramson has connected more dots on trump/russia than just about anyone outside of maybe Rachel Maddow. Perhaps he's "OUTRAGED" because he sees how [expletive] up all of this is and they're getting away with it. Maybe we should all be as outraged as him.



Mueller has connected the most dots. People are in prison thanks to Mueller. None thanks to Abramson. More to come, too, lots of Mueller is redacted due to ongoing investigations.

There's also the New York Times, that's the second most dots. They gave us all we've ever seen of a Trump tax return, published a 14,000 word piece on the phony nature of his fortune after thousands of hours of investigation which garnered them a Pulitzer, they ran the E Jean Carroll piece, they broke multiple storylines in the Cohen stuff, they broke multiple Kavanagh stories, and they've consistently provided the outrage you're asking for from op-ed writers like Bruni, Blow and several more, all of it without making hyperbolic claims like "I have proof of conspiracy based on my between-the-lines reading of news the New York Times has broken." So I prefer to not put Abramson on the level of Mueller or Real News. A conspiracy theorist on Twitter slash poet slash non-practicing attorney slash college prof slash Sanders Fan Fiction writer slash conspiracy theory book to peddle author is not the same as a special counsel with a team of the nation's best prosecutors at his disposal or the most thorough and award-winning journalistic body in the world.

I'm outraged. I'm just not willing to give credence to people who are just misleading a mislead-able public for political and social media currency plus some book sales. Abramson is FOX for the far left: people seem willing to believe his BS and let him lead them along as long as their politics align.


Last edited by 33anda3rd on August 26 19, 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 7:36 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
pioneer98 wrote:
Quote:
Young people who don't understand that national politics is a long game of incremental gains are going to end up pissed that five people are not getting immediately anointed and allowed to dictate policy and they're going to disengage.


And what I'm saying is this already happened - Bernie got screwed - and these voters did get pissed but they did not disengage. They are still very engaged. Groups like DSA and Our Revolution sprang out of his run.

If you look at the polls, Bernie has been stuck at like 17% to 18% for a long, long time. That's roughly where he was polling back in January. I could try to back this with actual data but, this is roughly what's happened:

January --> August:
Biden 30% --> 29%
Bernie 17% --> 17%
Warren 7% --> 14%
Kamala 12% --> 7%
Mayor Pete 0% --> 3%
Beto 7% --> 3%
All others 27% --> 27%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co ... ump-score/
Warren and Mayor Pete mainly stole voters from Kamala and Beto, and maybe they got a handful from Biden.


How did Warren and Mayor Pete steal voters from Harris and Beto? Warren was in the race before Harris. Warren didn't have a big national profile, but she had a bigger one than Harris.

If Sanders won 43.1% of the vote last time, and he can't crack 20% this time, how big a margin of error do we need to allow in the polls? Where are these voters?

If Sanders is polling way lower than his results last time because those voters have shifted to other candidates at this early stage, then exactly how popular is Sanders if his supporters are not polling for him now?

If Sanders is polling way lower than his results last time because those voters are telling pollsters they are not likely to vote, how do you not call them "disengaged"?

Generally speaking, where are all the 2016 Sanders voters?

Define how Bernie got screwed, and if using sources please make sure they are not biased politically and are well researched. Explain a gap of 3.7 million votes nationally without any unsubstantiated guesswork.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 8:09 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19756
Location: Low A Minors
These things are not hard to explain.

Some Kamala voters changed their minds and switched to Warren when Warren started getting attention for all her policies. Tulsi also took Kamala to the woodshed in a debate. These things happen. Mayor Pete also had a wave of positive press that he rode to like 8% to 10% in polls for a bit, and has since faded. These things also happen.

There are gobs of other candidates in the race compared to 2016. In 2016 we had Hillary, Bernie and O'Malley. If the 2020 race was between similar candidates, let's say Warren, Bernie and, I don't know, Hickenlooper...I'm pretty confident Bernie would be a lot higher than 17% in a field like that.

Yet another reason - and likely the biggest reason - is I think the 2020 electorate is more activated than the 2016 one. So there are more voters overall participating. Therefore, Bernie's supporters could be the same total number as 2016, but since the # of engaged voters overall has increased, Bernie's support as a percent of the whole has shrunk.

It's just weird to me to think that Bernie's supporters are disengaged, or are going to be disengaged. Bernie may not win but his supporters aren't going anywhere. You'll see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 8:18 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28444
Location: extremely online
I cannot wait until actual voting happens and we can start discussing this stuff with some substance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 8:36 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
pioneer98 wrote:
Some Kamala voters changed their minds and switched to Warren when Warren started getting attention for all her policies.


Except Kamala was at 6-8% before the first debate, which she crushed and gave her a bump, and she's now back down to 6-8%. Her bounce from that first debate is gone. She was great as scrutinizer, not so good when scrutinized, which is kinda necessary as a candidate. Same time frame, Warren has gone from sitting 8-11% to now sitting 15-20%, so it's not Kamala voters defecting to Warren.

As more candidates have entered, Sanders' support has eroded. He was consistently polling in the mid-20s in March and then Biden got in the race and Sanders dropped to the mid-teens and has been stuck there since. These are name recognition/electability voters and they [expletive] suck balls but they decide primaries.

pioneer98 wrote:
There are gobs of other candidates in the race compared to 2016. In 2016 we had Hillary, Bernie and O'Malley. If the 2020 race was between similar candidates, let's say Warren, Bernie and, I don't know, Hickenlooper...I'm pretty confident Bernie would be a lot higher than 17% in a field like that.


Sure, and Biden, Warren, Harris, Booker, Pete, Beto, the billionaire guy, the guy who looks like bald Will Ferrell, the cowboy guy who wore cowboy boots to the debate, the Oregon sex cult leader, the Asian dude, Klobuchar, Gillibrand would all be doing better if the field were not so big. So what? The way to think about this is to think about who voters are and what their needs are and where they're going. Who were people caucusing for Sanders in 2016? The far left. The aggrieved blue collar. The anti-Clinton Dems. The young people caught up in something that was, like, totally popular and cool on the internet. The Democratic sexists. The people strongly motivated by environment, possibly. The anti-Wall Street. People carrying student loan debt who loved the promise of that being wiped clean. Who else? And where are they now, since they're not polling for Sanders?

pioneer98 wrote:
Yet another reason - and likely the biggest reason - is I think the 2020 electorate is more activated than the 2016 one. So there are more voters overall participating. Therefore, Bernie's supporters could be the same total number as 2016, but since the # of engaged voters overall has increased, Bernie's support as a percent of the whole has shrunk.


If that's the case then Sanders, like Trump, has failed to increase his base and is doomed to taking an L.

It's not the case though. He narrowly lost Iowa in 2016 and currently is running in the teens there, a number far too far away from 2016 to be dismissed as "too early" or other. It's way outside the range of where it should be as a repeat customer who supposedly started a revolution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 12:26 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 20 06, 8:43 pm
Posts: 8606
Location: Please use blue font for the sarcasm impaired.
33anda3rd wrote:
GeddyWrox wrote:
Abramson has connected more dots on trump/russia than just about anyone outside of maybe Rachel Maddow. Perhaps he's "OUTRAGED" because he sees how [expletive] up all of this is and they're getting away with it. Maybe we should all be as outraged as him.



Mueller has connected the most dots. People are in prison thanks to Mueller. None thanks to Abramson. More to come, too, lots of Mueller is redacted due to ongoing investigations.

There's also the New York Times, that's the second most dots. They gave us all we've ever seen of a Trump tax return, published a 14,000 word piece on the phony nature of his fortune after thousands of hours of investigation which garnered them a Pulitzer, they ran the E Jean Carroll piece, they broke multiple storylines in the Cohen stuff, they broke multiple Kavanagh stories, and they've consistently provided the outrage you're asking for from op-ed writers like Bruni, Blow and several more, all of it without making hyperbolic claims like "I have proof of conspiracy based on my between-the-lines reading of news the New York Times has broken." So I prefer to not put Abramson on the level of Mueller or Real News. A conspiracy theorist on Twitter slash poet slash non-practicing attorney slash college prof slash Sanders Fan Fiction writer slash conspiracy theory book to peddle author is not the same as a special counsel with a team of the nation's best prosecutors at his disposal or the most thorough and award-winning journalistic body in the world.

I'm outraged. I'm just not willing to give credence to people who are just misleading a mislead-able public for political and social media currency plus some book sales. Abramson is FOX for the far left: people seem willing to believe his BS and let him lead them along as long as their politics align.

Mueller's purview was seriously constrained. You are correct about NYT digging up a lot of info. I like Seth's ability to keep the focus on the big picture. It's easy to lose sight of just how freaking huge this whole thing is, and he is really good at going point by point of all the sh!t that has gone on. He's also a former prosecutor so he understands and explains things that the NYT and elsewhere don't or can't. But go ahead and paint me with a tin foil hat brush. That's fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 1:15 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
GeddyWrox wrote:
But go ahead and paint me with a tin foil hat brush. That's fine.


I don't mean to paint you that way Geddy. Abramson, yes. But not you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 1:52 pm 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 20 06, 8:43 pm
Posts: 8606
Location: Please use blue font for the sarcasm impaired.
33anda3rd wrote:
GeddyWrox wrote:
But go ahead and paint me with a tin foil hat brush. That's fine.


I don't mean to paint you that way Geddy. Abramson, yes. But not you.

Good to know. But here's the thing - and maybe I'm off base, but SA always cites his Russia posts. Always. And a lot of times he's using the work from NYT or WaPo as a jumping off point, and then tying in quotes from Mueller's report or other news items. He's not making [expletive] up. Does he write sensationalist headlines, sure. But I feel like he backs up the stuff he's writing on Russia. He's certainly no Alex Jones Pizza Gate type conspiracy hack. IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 26 19, 2:28 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
GeddyWrox wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
GeddyWrox wrote:
But go ahead and paint me with a tin foil hat brush. That's fine.


I don't mean to paint you that way Geddy. Abramson, yes. But not you.

Good to know. But here's the thing - and maybe I'm off base, but SA always cites his Russia posts. Always. And a lot of times he's using the work from NYT or WaPo as a jumping off point, and then tying in quotes from Mueller's report or other news items. He's not making [expletive] up. Does he write sensationalist headlines, sure. But I feel like he backs up the stuff he's writing on Russia. He's certainly no Alex Jones Pizza Gate type conspiracy hack. IMO.


He's not a Pizzagate hack, but he's a hack. Please consider:

1. He posts links for donations and is trying to get paid in money off outrage. A Paste journalist Tweeted a reply to his donation plea, asking why he needed donations when he's on the payroll at two news sites. Abramson blocked him on Twitter.

2. When he was on a real roll with Russia, how many tweets had "RETWEET if you agree/think..." in them? This is just self-promotion without real result. Here's what I mean: Link. Why does he beg for retweets? He is trying to get paid in social media currency off outrage. If you want to "Send Trump a message" or "Let the Senate know" something, retweeting this outrage profiteer is not the way to do it, all it accomplishes is making the outrage profiteer internet famous.

3. He wrote in June 2016 that Sanders (who trailed by hundreds of delegates) was actually winning the primary. Here's the link to that post of his: link. Oops. The link, of course, is dead because he deleted that post in which he said that Clinton's 54-46% lead was "actually a dead heat" and he was probably tired of people tweeting at him that he's a liar. All this does is misinform. I know, because my most liberal friends were on Facebook early last summer repeating this: Bernie's not out, Bernie can still win. They believed his BS. The Atlantic has said about his writings that they: "not only denied political realities and delegate math as the race wore on; they often denied basic human logic."

For what it's worth, Abramson acknowledges and rationalizes his lies:

Spoiler: show


4. Check out this tweet.
Spoiler: show

Then click on the link. Abramson tells us it's about Trump "about to go to war." But find the word "war" in the article he's linking. He's a sensationalist, happy to fabricate things to generate clicks, likes, follows. That tweet has 1K retweets and 1.5K likes. That's insane yo! It's like if I tweeted "Cardinals win 2018 World Series" with a link to a story about some catholic cardinals praying for poker addicts.

5. Check out this tweet:
Spoiler: show

It's a lie. The Steele Dossier was reported by:
The New York Times
The Guardian
WaPo
Abramson has no sources. Abramson collects the reports of real journalists then credits himself for "reporting" on it. He's a self-congratulatorty ding-dong taking credit for other peoples' work.

6. Check out this tweet:
Spoiler: show

and the thread.
You tell me how many MSM links you'd like to disprove those claims, I'll happily link them. Especially: "FACT 10: Those who lied in some way about Russian meetings include Page, Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, Sessions, Cohen, and Trump. Plus Kislyak." How did the MSM not report on Flynn and Sessions having Russian meetings when Sessions was forced to recuse himself from Russiagate due to the media revealing his lies? How did the MSM not report on Flynn and Russia when Flynn went to prison over Russia after the MSM reported that he had contact and lied about it? Abramson just basically tells whatever lies he needs to make himself a heroic journalist and the big papers a bunch of liars.

Abramson is a [expletive] turd. Everyone from GQ to ThinkProgress, Paste to the WaPo, Deadspin to Vice has called him a conspiracy theorist and not just downplayed his importance but done stuff like call into question Twitter for giving him that blue checkmark which dangerously validates his conspiracy theories to people turning to Twitter for actual news.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 30 19, 11:46 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 20 06, 8:43 pm
Posts: 8606
Location: Please use blue font for the sarcasm impaired.
I don't know who this guy is (but hey, at least he's not Satan - I mean Seth)... it's an interesting plan at least. It's predicated on them being able to get the Duetche Bank records though....



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2759 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 272, 273, 274, 275, 276  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group