Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[YO303]

I came to the conclusion that Awepittance is a pretty good dude, and I shouldn't have ever made fun of him, ya know? 

 

trump killed basketball kids 

[Hugh Mughnus]

anyone read any documents lately?

[whosebrian]

huge fonts

[whosebrian]

[Hugh Mughnus]

lol

[auxien]

Well, at least some are saying he's getting better at the job, and maybe is more serious than he seems in regards to NK? Looking for something good to say.

 

But also he's a fucking fool.

[sweepstakes]

 

Looking for something good to say.

What's the point?

[may be rude]

positive vibes

[sweepstakes]

positive vibes

Wrong thread.

[bendish]

'An untimely visit': Trump avoids protest at Mississippi Civil Rights Museum

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/09/donald-trump-avoids-protests-mississippi-civil-rights-museum?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

The people that allowed him in there should be ashamed.

[ignatius]

'An untimely visit': Trump avoids protest at Mississippi Civil Rights Museum

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/09/donald-trump-avoids-protests-mississippi-civil-rights-museum?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

The people that allowed him in there should be ashamed.

 

 

he had ben carson, his black friend, with him though

[azatoth]

Seen some Seth Abramson tweet threads posted (i hate tweet threads, why not post a link to a blog). He is usually full of shit.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/sharing-seth-abramson-not-once-not-ever.html

[Candiru]

What’s weird is that a lot of people look to Seth Abramson when he mostly just extrapolates on what other people on twitter report on. Those other people are ridiculed and called frauds but they have been surprisingly consistent. John Schindler, Counterchekist, Tea Pain, Eric Garland, and yes, Claude Taylor. Weird eh? The only real issues I can find with them is that things haven’t happened as quickly as they’ve said.

[goDel]

Seen some Seth Abramson tweet threads posted (i hate tweet threads, why not post a link to a blog). He is usually full of shit.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/sharing-seth-abramson-not-once-not-ever.html

 

As a critique to Abramson I like this article better

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/12/06/people-cant-stop-reading-a-professors-theory-of-a-trump-russia-conspiracy-true-or-not/?utm_term=.8ca23fab932e

 

This Slate thing doesn't prove anything. It jumps off attacking Louise Mensch. Actually the first half goes off on Louise. What has she got to do with Abramson exactly? (O, right somewhere at the end the Abramson et al. blanket is used, so we're supposed to believe they're all equals. Sure and that's because?) Regardless though, using "ATTENTION" to start a tweet is a big "No", I learned. Using logic "If X then Y" is also a "no". O, and in terms of evidence "and I spoke to two Slate staffers with law degrees who found the scenario farfetched" this should basically close the case.

 

Quickly about the Washington post article, or rather the BBC clip link to:

 

The irony is that even though Abramson is supposed to be full of BS, the republican basically acknowledges the importance of the Flynn indictment at the end of the interview. So the logic "if Mueller indicted Flynn only for lying to the FBI instead of other accusations, then this means Mueller has struck a deal with Flynn" is basically confirmed by someone trying to downplay Abramsons argument. 

If you add the logic Mueller would only deal with Flynn if he could bring valuable information about people higher up the chain of command. There aren't many people on that list, obviously. So the logic holds anyways even though you disagree with Abramson? OK, that's interesting. 

 

Obviously, I've used the word "if" a couple of times already, so I'm also talking BS. Hell, I currently wonder how many "if"s are in the climate change report. "If" there are too many, it must be BS as well. If...the irony.

 

Anywho, what I think is interesting currently is the sudden explosion of anti-Mueller propaganda from the pro-Trump media. The anti-Abramson angle is just a side dish. But seems to be part of a larger effort for damage control. The anti-Mueller thing is really worrying. Looks like Mueller is really getting close the people who are convinced they're innocent.

 

Also, the Eric Prince chat in Congress, or rather Abramson analysing the transscript is recommended. Although not for the "blog"-people. Really presents a prosecuters perspective on what happened there. And what kind of people we're dealing with.

[chenGOD]

While I don’t like Abramson’s tweet storms (because I don’t like tweet storms in general), he has made fairly obvious and logically supported statements.

He does tend to over-emphasize things, but that’s the media game these days. And therein lies the problem. Abramson is, whether he likes it or not, part of the media. He needs to play the game that way. He’s trapped by his own success.

 

That slate piece reads like it was written by someone that abramson pissed off.

[YO303]

Seth Abramson is a yellow journalist, 80 percent of the shit he tweets about turns out to be bullshit, i stopped following him weeks ago.

[goDel]

Seth Abramson is a yellow journalist, 80 percent of the shit he tweets about turns out to be bullshit, i stopped following him weeks ago.

 

80%? like what?

 

Not saying everyone should believe or follow him, but if you have info that makes more sense or a commentator giving more insight into the Mueller research, I'm happy to follow. I haven't seen too many regular journalists putting in the effort to connect the dots based on the info that's already out there.

[YO303]

I guess i dont like speculation, i want factual reporting.

 

Seth gets the anti-trump crowd excited, making them think the end is near for trump, he tells them what they want to hear.

[auxien]

I haven't seen too many regular journalists putting in the effort to connect the dots based on the info that's already out there.

There's a reason for that.

 

 

I guess i dont like speculation, i want factual reporting.

 

Seth gets the anti-trump crowd excited, making them think the end is near for trump, he tells them what they want to hear.

Yup.

[bendish]

I guess i dont like speculation, i want factual reporting.

 

Seth gets the anti-trump crowd excited, making them think the end is near for trump, he tells them what they want to hear.

 

yea

empty hope 

trumps the tip of the iceberg of broken America

[psn]

I guess i dont like speculation, i want factual reporting.

 

Seth gets the anti-trump crowd excited, making them think the end is near for trump, he tells them what they want to hear.

No, on the contrary, he emphasises that this will take a long time.

 

Also, him estimating several months ago that the first indictments would happen in November was off by one day! It happened on October 31.

Edited December 10, 2017 by psn

[goDel]

 

I haven't seen too many regular journalists putting in the effort to connect the dots based on the info that's already out there.

There's a reason for that.

 

 

I guess i dont like speculation, i want factual reporting.

 

Seth gets the anti-trump crowd excited, making them think the end is near for trump, he tells them what they want to hear.

Yup.

 

 

Mkay, besides disliking speculation I suspect you're not interested in making logical arguments either. 

 

There's a reason for no-one connecting the dots? Sure, do tell. Please enlighten me. Apparently I'm too dumb to understand, so let me please bathe in your wisdom.

 

And from a comment that 80% of his remarks is BS, we're jumping to "don't like speculation, only like factual reporting". So, if you've got such high standards of reporting, where does the 80% come from? Was that factual? Done any measurements? I would be actually happy if you could name one example. You didn't, and instead went the "it's all speculation" route. I understand you can't be bothered though. Why would you?

 

The thread about the Eric Prince chat in Congress was pretty factual, btw. (commenting on a transcript) So, I'm guessing that's the other 20%?

 

Also, this anti-trump crowd excitement thing. I guess i don't have the experience with the anti-trump crowd that you have, but personally, this is less about excitement and more about being informed.

 

And I don't like excited crowds either, btw. But that's a different subject. Or, I thought it should be.

[auxien]

 

 

I haven't seen too many regular journalists putting in the effort to connect the dots based on the info that's already out there.

There's a reason for that.

 

There's a reason for no-one connecting the dots? Sure, do tell. Please enlighten me. Apparently I'm too dumb to understand, so let me please bathe in your wisdom.

First of all, cool it pal. No one called you dumb. I doubt you are, though at the same time I'm certainly not wise. ;)

 

Journalists don't often market in speculation, they report facts. Sometimes they may take the next step in what the new facts/situations suggest, but that's a small part of they may choose to do, and many journalists don't really work in speculation at all. It's not a part of their job. Their job is to report facts, and connect dots, yes...but dots based on facts. Abramson and some others like to speculate and that's great, I enjoy it too...but it ain't journalism and it ain't got but shreds of truth in it for the most. He takes the dots much farther than is reasonable imo (and many others' opinions, obviously). I said it months ago when Abramson started getting posted ITT every fucking page, he's trying to read the future of human actions and that's a pretty bad business to be in. It's fun to read and consider and I'm not shitting on anyone for reading him, he's good at condensing legal text into small easily-read summaries, but when he strays into speculation (as he always does from what little I've read, I've been ignoring his stuff for a while though, maybe he's gotten off that? I dunno) I'd suggest tuning out, or at the least taking it with a grain of salt.

 

He's really good at setting up a great case and making the reader feel smart for following and coming to the same conclusions he has corralled us to, but it's mostly just guesses. At best, educated guesses. I'm not saying he's never going to be right, I'm saying he's probably got only slightly more chance than Nostradamus at predicting the future. Not because he's a huckster necessarily, just that what he's trying to do is nearly impossible at its base: predicting the outcomes of humans. Even based on facts, even based on his knowledge of law and DC, even based on how easily-read Trump is, you can't know what's going to happen next. And from what I have read of him, that's what he's 'selling,' and I don't have much interest in that personally.

[YO303]

 

 

I haven't seen too many regular journalists putting in the effort to connect the dots based on the info that's already out there.

There's a reason for that.

 

I guess i dont like speculation, i want factual reporting.

 

Seth gets the anti-trump crowd excited, making them think the end is near for trump, he tells them what they want to hear.

Yup.

Mkay, besides disliking speculation I suspect you're not interested in making logical arguments either.

 

There's a reason for no-one connecting the dots? Sure, do tell. Please enlighten me. Apparently I'm too dumb to understand, so let me please bathe in your wisdom.

 

And from a comment that 80% of his remarks is BS, we're jumping to "don't like speculation, only like factual reporting". So, if you've got such high standards of reporting, where does the 80% come from? Was that factual? Done any measurements? I would be actually happy if you could name one example. You didn't, and instead went the "it's all speculation" route. I understand you can't be bothered though. Why would you?

 

The thread about the Eric Prince chat in Congress was pretty factual, btw. (commenting on a transcript) So, I'm guessing that's the other 20%?

 

Also, this anti-trump crowd excitement thing. I guess i don't have the experience with the anti-trump crowd that you have, but personally, this is less about excitement and more about being informed.

 

And I don't like excited crowds either, btw. But that's a different subject. Or, I thought it should be.

First of all im not a journalist lol dont hold me to the same standards you should hold actual journalist, i pulled the 80 percent out of my ass.

 

There was a tweet that did it for me, ill find it after the city-united game i promise.

 

But look at his current pinned tweet, its pure speculation, it reads like something out of right wing deep state conspiracy theories.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Deer

[whosebrian]