Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
I thought I'd post this in here for Bernie supporters. I was noticing things like this way back in 2016... but as soon as Bernie became a candidate for 2020 the mainstream news media has been snubbing him constantly relative to other Candidates.
I remember the 2016 primaries... I was watching the news right as I got up, by 9 am on the last major and determining primary day... and cnn had called the primaries for Clinton by 9 am... how the fuck they could do that I have no idea. I can't even imagine what small percentage of the votes would have been tallied by then.
I can imagine thousands of people stayed home because they thought... why would I bother.
On November 06 2019 11:28 ShambhalaWar wrote: I thought I'd post this in here for Bernie supporters. I was noticing things like this way back in 2016... but as soon as Bernie became a candidate for 2020 the mainstream news media has been snubbing him constantly relative to other Candidates.
I remember the 2016 primaries... I was watching the news right as I got up, by 9 am on the last major and determining primary day... and cnn had called the primaries for Clinton by 9 am... how the fuck they could do that I have no idea. I can't even imagine what small percentage of the votes would have been tallied by then.
I can imagine thousands of people stayed home because they thought... why would I bother.
I'm not sure even the most steadfast folks of 2016 (here anyway) still believe they didn't cover for a clearly biased media and party and their efforts to manipulate the primary and undermine democracy?
On November 06 2019 09:14 Ben... wrote: I guess that quote kinda begs the question of what the hell has been going on with Lindsey Graham the last year or two? His behaviour with this impeachment stuff in particular has been outright bizarre. Important context for that tweet above is that Graham was previously demanding that the transcripts for Sondland and Volker be released since he believed not doing so was a sign that the hearing was rigged and wasn't transparent. Now that this testimony has been released he and several other high profile Republicans have essentially claimed that the hearing is rigged anyway and said that reading the testimony was pointless. It's abundantly clear that the Republicans are acting in extreme bad faith at this point. Nothing the Democrats running the inquiry will do will ever placate these people, and in acting as they are, these Republicans are giving an out to Fox News and other conservative outlets to report on what these people are doing rather than being forced to report on the increasingly damning content of these testimonies.
The reason Graham in particular sticks out is because his behaviour has done a complete 180 degree spin from 2 years ago. He used to be one of the few vocal Republican critics of Trump and would commonly voice his disagreements. Suddenly within a short period of time he became one of Trump's biggest supporters, and will lie as needed to keep consistent with Trump's narrative. It's become a meme at this point for Graham to say one thing, then people to immediately find a clip of him in the past saying the precise opposite. It's clear that he has abandoned any principles he previously had.
Something else to point out with regard to these testimonies being released is that behind closed doors it's quite obvious the Republicans act quite differently. Yes, it is typically each member's staff asking questions, but outside of a few specific circumstances, the Republicans tend to simply be following along with the hearing and asking their questions. The ridiculous Gowdy-like theatrics we see in the public hearings don't tend to be happening nearly as much. This definitely lends credence to the idea that they are acting as they are in public purely to distract from acts done by Trump that are looking increasingly indefensible.
Both parties do this, closed-door hearings are always more well-behaved by everyone.
It's not a sign of anything.
Normally, yes, this is to be expected. But do you not find it strange that we have a fair number of Republicans publicly calling this entire inquiry a sham while also happily participating in it without putting up a stink? Does that not suggest that they may not actually view the inquiry as being this horribly biased, unfair thing like they keep claiming? Why participate at all if that is truly what they believe? To me, this suggests that, despite their public protests, many of these Republicans do actually view this inquiry as something worth following through with.
On November 06 2019 02:21 redlightdistrict wrote: Well now that the Epstien thing is coming back to life, ABC news is talking about how they were pressured by Alan Dersiowtz, Prince Andrew, and Epstien to suppress the story for years.
No one is going to discuss anything made by project veritas. They are verifiably dog shit and we've been through this before. It is as fake news as fake news can be. It is actually fake.
The video itself is quite damning, despite the edits and authors politcal bias. ABC even responded to the claim in a dodgy way. Their abortion crap, was indeed crap, but this ... to my knowledge has some alarm bells.
The problem with making several fake propaganda pieces is that if you ever decide to become a journalist no one will believe you.
On November 06 2019 02:21 redlightdistrict wrote: Well now that the Epstien thing is coming back to life, ABC news is talking about how they were pressured by Alan Dersiowtz, Prince Andrew, and Epstien to suppress the story for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&feature=youtu.be
No one is going to discuss anything made by project veritas. They are verifiably dog shit and we've been through this before. It is as fake news as fake news can be. It is actually fake.
The video itself is quite damning, despite the edits and authors politcal bias. ABC even responded to the claim in a dodgy way. Their abortion crap, was indeed crap, but this ... to my knowledge has some alarm bells.
The problem with making several fake propaganda pieces is that if you ever decide to become a journalist no one will believe you.
It's fortunate, then, that the leaked material has been corroborated by statements from Amy Robach and ABC. Additionally, the story has been covered by AP, NPR, Business Insider, and others. I have yet to see a refutation.
On November 06 2019 02:21 redlightdistrict wrote: Well now that the Epstien thing is coming back to life, ABC news is talking about how they were pressured by Alan Dersiowtz, Prince Andrew, and Epstien to suppress the story for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&feature=youtu.be
No one is going to discuss anything made by project veritas. They are verifiably dog shit and we've been through this before. It is as fake news as fake news can be. It is actually fake.
The video itself is quite damning, despite the edits and authors politcal bias. ABC even responded to the claim in a dodgy way. Their abortion crap, was indeed crap, but this ... to my knowledge has some alarm bells.
The problem with making several fake propaganda pieces is that if you ever decide to become a journalist no one will believe you.
It's fortunate, then, that the leaked material has been corroborated by statements from Amy Robach and ABC. Additionally, the story has been covered by AP, NPR, Business Insider, and others. I have yet to see a refutation.
The point is that the Project Veritas name is worth less than no name at all. It has negative journalistic value. It’s less believable than an anonymous redditor claiming a story is true. If I was told that an anonymous source said one thing and Project Veritas said another I would automatically judge the anonymous source to be more trustworthy because only one of them has a history of fabrications. I can’t speak to the story itself but Project Veritas should always be shamed whenever their name comes up.
On November 06 2019 02:21 redlightdistrict wrote: Well now that the Epstien thing is coming back to life, ABC news is talking about how they were pressured by Alan Dersiowtz, Prince Andrew, and Epstien to suppress the story for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&feature=youtu.be
No one is going to discuss anything made by project veritas. They are verifiably dog shit and we've been through this before. It is as fake news as fake news can be. It is actually fake.
The video itself is quite damning, despite the edits and authors politcal bias. ABC even responded to the claim in a dodgy way. Their abortion crap, was indeed crap, but this ... to my knowledge has some alarm bells.
The problem with making several fake propaganda pieces is that if you ever decide to become a journalist no one will believe you.
It's fortunate, then, that the leaked material has been corroborated by statements from Amy Robach and ABC. Additionally, the story has been covered by AP, NPR, Business Insider, and others. I have yet to see a refutation.
The point is that the Project Veritas name is worth less than no name at all. It has negative journalistic value. It’s less believable than an anonymous redditor claiming a story is true. If I was told that an anonymous source said one thing and Project Veritas said another I would automatically judge the anonymous source to be more trustworthy because only one of them has a history of fabrications. I can’t speak to the story itself but Project Veritas should always be shamed whenever their name comes up.
The point is that the leaked material is authentic and should not be discarded due to the brand that published it. AP, NPR, et al. disagree with you that Veritas has negative journalistic value, as well as the leakers that have chosen Veritas to publish their material
On November 06 2019 02:21 redlightdistrict wrote: Well now that the Epstien thing is coming back to life, ABC news is talking about how they were pressured by Alan Dersiowtz, Prince Andrew, and Epstien to suppress the story for years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA&feature=youtu.be
No one is going to discuss anything made by project veritas. They are verifiably dog shit and we've been through this before. It is as fake news as fake news can be. It is actually fake.
The video itself is quite damning, despite the edits and authors politcal bias. ABC even responded to the claim in a dodgy way. Their abortion crap, was indeed crap, but this ... to my knowledge has some alarm bells.
The problem with making several fake propaganda pieces is that if you ever decide to become a journalist no one will believe you.
It's fortunate, then, that the leaked material has been corroborated by statements from Amy Robach and ABC. Additionally, the story has been covered by AP, NPR, Business Insider, and others. I have yet to see a refutation.
The point is that the Project Veritas name is worth less than no name at all. It has negative journalistic value. It’s less believable than an anonymous redditor claiming a story is true. If I was told that an anonymous source said one thing and Project Veritas said another I would automatically judge the anonymous source to be more trustworthy because only one of them has a history of fabrications. I can’t speak to the story itself but Project Veritas should always be shamed whenever their name comes up.
The point is that the leaked material is authentic and should not be discarded due to the brand that published it. AP, NPR, et al. disagree with you that Veritas has negative journalistic value, as well as the leakers that have chosen Veritas to publish their material
Then use NPR, AP, etc. as the source for the information, not Project Veritas. By using Project Veritas, a person would automatically be making the majority of people, especially here, skeptical of the subject matter. It'd be like posting from InfoWars and expecting someone to take it seriously. It's just not gonna work.
If there is in fact something Project Veritas reported that was correct, then there would be other outlets backing up this correctness independently. In 99/100 cases, whatever those other outlets are would be a better source to use or share than Project Veritas. Any organization depicting themselves as a news outlet that has been found to have a history of being deceitful in the way Project Veritas has should be ignored and shunned.
They (Project Veritas) broke the information and are the source that has been verified authentic by other outlets. That they have been wrong before has absolutely nothing to do with the information and the insane avoidance of the actual information here by some of you in favor of complaining about the source is bewildering, Especially now that its been verified.
As Amy Robach say's in the piece(hot mic) i'm also sure Epstein didn't kill himself, Id go as far to say Epstein killing himself is the conspiracy here, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
On November 06 2019 14:06 Taelshin wrote: They (Project Veritas) broke the information and are the source that has been verified authentic by other outlets. That they have been wrong before has absolutely nothing to do with the information and the insane avoidance of the actual information here by some of you in favor of complaining about the source is bewildering, Especially now that its been verified.
As Amy Robach say's in the piece(hot mic) i'm also sure Epstein didn't kill himself, Id go as far to say Epstein killing himself is the conspiracy here, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
There is a difference between being wrong before and being a deliberately bad actor that you're refusing to acknowledge here. It's the difference between being a shitty pilot and the terrorists on 9/11.
On November 06 2019 09:14 Ben... wrote: I guess that quote kinda begs the question of what the hell has been going on with Lindsey Graham the last year or two? His behaviour with this impeachment stuff in particular has been outright bizarre. Important context for that tweet above is that Graham was previously demanding that the transcripts for Sondland and Volker be released since he believed not doing so was a sign that the hearing was rigged and wasn't transparent. Now that this testimony has been released he and several other high profile Republicans have essentially claimed that the hearing is rigged anyway and said that reading the testimony was pointless. It's abundantly clear that the Republicans are acting in extreme bad faith at this point. Nothing the Democrats running the inquiry will do will ever placate these people, and in acting as they are, these Republicans are giving an out to Fox News and other conservative outlets to report on what these people are doing rather than being forced to report on the increasingly damning content of these testimonies.
The reason Graham in particular sticks out is because his behaviour has done a complete 180 degree spin from 2 years ago. He used to be one of the few vocal Republican critics of Trump and would commonly voice his disagreements. Suddenly within a short period of time he became one of Trump's biggest supporters, and will lie as needed to keep consistent with Trump's narrative. It's become a meme at this point for Graham to say one thing, then people to immediately find a clip of him in the past saying the precise opposite. It's clear that he has abandoned any principles he previously had.
Something else to point out with regard to these testimonies being released is that behind closed doors it's quite obvious the Republicans act quite differently. Yes, it is typically each member's staff asking questions, but outside of a few specific circumstances, the Republicans tend to simply be following along with the hearing and asking their questions. The ridiculous Gowdy-like theatrics we see in the public hearings don't tend to be happening nearly as much. This definitely lends credence to the idea that they are acting as they are in public purely to distract from acts done by Trump that are looking increasingly indefensible.
Both parties do this, closed-door hearings are always more well-behaved by everyone.
It's not a sign of anything.
Normally, yes, this is to be expected. But do you not find it strange that we have a fair number of Republicans publicly calling this entire inquiry a sham while also happily participating in it without putting up a stink? Does that not suggest that they may not actually view the inquiry as being this horribly biased, unfair thing like they keep claiming? Why participate at all if that is truly what they believe? To me, this suggests that, despite their public protests, many of these Republicans do actually view this inquiry as something worth following through with.
Nah, I think when you are in that room and you have the officials right there with you, you ask all the questions you have, and do so quite seriously. it's not like they are protesting an election when they know the result will be rigged. If they just didn't show or treated like the clownshow public hearings are, there'd be no way to suss out the other side of the story. It's just giving up.
**
On another note, there were some off-year state elections today.
Overall good for Democrats, but no where near as good as 2017-18. The least popular Governor in the country lost (Republican in KY), but the rest of the GOP candidates for statewide office ran away with it, and the Dems showed that Virginia is officially a blue state, if that wasn't already obvious. But across the other states the GOP managed to keep losses to a minimum (so far doing better the Dems during the Obama first term) and even flip some state and local races here and there (may have broken the NJ senate Dem supermajority and flipped some assembly seats). This year has looked much better for the GOP than the first two. Usual caveat that off-year state wide races don't have predictive power for the presidential race, but it is interesting to see that state-level democracy and even cross-party voting at the state level are nowhere near dead, as the turnouts have been hitting new (modern) highs for off-year elections. The some-suburbs/rural split, though, seems to be continuing.
Also, the Democrats these left-wing groups are funding in low-turnout DA races are concerning; they could do real damage to law, order, and public safety.
edit: as a fun side-note, KY now has it's first Republican AG since the 40s, and MS has it's first GOP AG since 1878 (and second ever), if you want an idea if just how long and slow the southern transformation has been, espeically at the state level. 2010 was the first time a majority of southern state legislatures went to the GOP, IIRC.
idk, if you like this stuff it's really interesting.
You should submit that "summary" of yesterday's results to Fox News, Intro, I'm sure they'd give you a job. It minimizes and maximizes in near lockstep with the channel-party line
Looks like Bevin is refusing to concede. I wonder if he'll be the first to actually put his money where his mouth is and actually do a recount to dispel the boogeyman of voter fraud. Nah, he'll just go the way of McCrory (or try to make it so that the legislature can declare him the winner).
Or maybe he's in the new vein of GOP politician that (like Trump) wasn't brought into the loop that voter fraud is a specter to enact policies to reduce voting by populations that don't support you and not an actual reason people lose elections, so you never ever actually investigate it...
On November 06 2019 21:22 farvacola wrote: You should submit that "summary" of yesterday's results to Fox News, Intro, I'm sure they'd give you a job. It minimizes and maximizes in near lockstep with the channel-party line
It's also accurate
GOP improved almost everywhere this year except Virginia and parts of PA. Bevin is obviously an outlier. I like to keep things grounded since a lot of people here took 2018 as some sort of harbinger. And still, you'd rather be Dems last night. At least I think.
On November 06 2019 23:28 farvacola wrote: The fact that the guy who got the most campaign support from Trump lost and is now seemingly in the mood to contest the result is very significant.
Trump loves long shots (his ego wont let him think that he could possibly lose), so he would naturally spend the most time in the race that looked the worst, so I think losing despite Trump's support has more to say about the candidate than an overall reaction to Trump (in that state).
Sure but there’s more to it than that; Kentucky is in many ways ground zero for the Republican government agenda, so even if Bevin, the incumbent Republican governor in a very red state, can be regarded as a long shot, that in itself is significant.
On Monday night’s episode of “Dancing With the Stars,” judge Len Goodman looked like he finally was out of patience with Sean Spicer.
“We keep throwing you out the boat and the viewers keep throwing a life preserver,” he wearily told President Trump’s former press secretary after Spicer’s less-than-stellar jazz routine to Styx’s “Come Sail Away.” The studio audience didn’t know how to react to that comment — there was a mix of applause and boos. Host Tom Bergeron burst out laughing.
“That’s the truth!” judge Carrie Ann Inaba chimed in, as Goodman added that the mermaid (one of the characters onstage during his nautical-themed performance with professional partner Jenna Johnson) had better footwork than Spicer.
Indeed, over the past eight weeks of ABC’s competition series, Spicer has earned some of the worst scores from the judges; he has been ranked last for the past four consecutive weeks. Yet he shows no sign of being voted off the show. At the end of each episode, the two couples with the lowest scores (a combination of judge scores and viewer votes) face the three judges, who choose which pair to eliminate. So far, Spicer has never been in the bottom two. AD
That means, as Goodman said, viewers have carried him through
EPT
