Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253
I am wondering where everyone gets their opinion and analysis from. I recently started reading National Review because I saw a few interviews with David French and he seems reasonable. I also like George Will.

I like the New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, and Politico. I also take a peek at Drudge Report from time to time. I think pretty highly of Jacobin though I rarely read it.

What do you read or view?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2892|London, England
National Review, Instapundit, Slate, ZeroHedge, Reason, Popehat, George Will and Business Insider

Last edited by Jay (2016-11-15 14:16:54)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4166|949

NPR, Guardian, Economist, WSJ (for the lulz), Foreign Policy Magazine, GlobalSecurity.org.

I'll read pretty much any news story from any site if it's interesting, but it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their opinion or analysis.

Also, George Will is a fucking dumbie
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253
What is wrong with George Will? He is much better than 90% of the smut that makes up the modern conservative movement. Whatever that even is.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4166|949

He's an old, out of touch white guy that laments like an old, out of touch white guy.
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|3533|Vortex Ring State
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Economist, TASS (for the lulz), TSN Novosti (lulz x2), sometimes stuff from thelocal chain (.se .de .no)
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

He's an old, out of touch white guy that laments like an old, out of touch white guy.
Still more reasonable than the young lunatics putting out articles in Breitbart. I am willing to give his old white opinions a chance if he can pitch them respectfully enough.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-11-15 15:07:25)

KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4166|949

problem is george will is entrenched in american media.  Breitbart isn't (and hopefully never will be in its current incarnation).

Ah, the ol' 'choose between two piles of shit' conundrum.  At the end of the day, you are still choosing shit.  But he dresses up his bloviating in a well-fitting suit, you say. It's still fucking bullshit spouted out of the gaping maw of a rotting pile of flesh.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2892|London, England
David French is awful. He likes to wax on about manliness because he started going to the gym but he's still a needy ex d&d player. He's also pro-life and pro-intervention. I really like Katherine Timpf and David Harsanyi.

Last edited by Jay (2016-11-15 15:28:33)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

problem is george will is entrenched in american media.  Breitbart isn't (and hopefully never will be in its current incarnation).

Ah, the ol' 'choose between two piles of shit' conundrum.  At the end of the day, you are still choosing shit.  But he dresses up his bloviating in a well-fitting suit, you say. It's still fucking bullshit spouted out of the gaping maw of a rotting pile of flesh.
You are older than me. Can you please point out what George Will has said or done over the years to earn your hate?

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-11-15 15:27:49)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2892|London, England
Will has abandoned his skepticism towards intervention since around the Iraq surge. He dropped in prestige in my eyes because of it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253
That makes me like him more.

The one thing I like about Trump is that he is likely to intervene places. Hopefully his advisers help steer him towards the right people to blow up.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,773|4166|949

i can't think of anything specifically off hand save the shit he said about feminists holding America hostage or something to that effect.  He used to write "the Last Word with George Will" for Newsweek (not sure if he still does).  That's where I was first exposed to his writing.  It just reeks of 'old man shouting at clouds'.  He also holds a lot of "back in my day" thoughts about baseball.

I can't stand people who want the world to cater to their rose-tinted view of the way things were a long time ago.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,959|2892|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

i can't think of anything specifically off hand save the shit he said about feminists holding America hostage or something to that effect.  He used to write "the Last Word with George Will" for Newsweek (not sure if he still does).  That's where I was first exposed to his writing.  It just reeks of 'old man shouting at clouds'.  He also holds a lot of "back in my day" thoughts about baseball.

I can't stand people who want the world to cater to their rose-tinted view of the way things were a long time ago.
He really fucked up the discussion around steroids but I don't mind the reminiscing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253
Steroids in sports should be legal. I want to see the apex of human capabilities on display when I watch sports.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+698|4219|United States of America
WaPo, NYT, Politico, FiveThirtyEight, The Atlantic, sometimes The New Yorker, occasionally TheHill, occasionally WSJ, Fox if I hate myself.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253

DesertFox- wrote:

WaPo, NYT, Politico, FiveThirtyEight, The Atlantic, sometimes The New Yorker, occasionally TheHill, occasionally WSJ, Fox if I hate myself.
I gave up on FiveThirtyEight at about 3AM last Tuesday. As far as I am concerned, they lost their legitimacy this election. I would even blame them a bit for Trump.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4250

SuperJail Warden wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

WaPo, NYT, Politico, FiveThirtyEight, The Atlantic, sometimes The New Yorker, occasionally TheHill, occasionally WSJ, Fox if I hate myself.
I gave up on FiveThirtyEight at about 3AM last Tuesday. As far as I am concerned, they lost their legitimacy this election. I would even blame them a bit for Trump.
lol
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253
got something to add?
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+698|4219|United States of America
They lost legitimacy by... having one of the only models that gave Trump a >10% chance of winning throughout much of the general?
SuperJail Warden
Member
+166|1253
they spent the primary repeatedly writing articles about how trump was going to lose the primary. one of their articles was literally "stop panicking. trump is not going to win the primary".

when the general election rolled around, they lured lefties into a sense of security by assuring them they had a 75% chance of winning. up until the results coming in they were still predicting democrats would even take back the senate.

then trump finally wins in a way that 0 of their articles or estimates predicted as happening. nate silver called two elections closely but this was a huge fuck up. the huge disparity between their predictions and how things played out call into doubt their entire premise.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4250

SuperJail Warden wrote:

they spent the primary repeatedly writing articles about how trump was going to lose the primary. one of their articles was literally "stop panicking. trump is not going to win the primary".

when the general election rolled around, they lured lefties into a sense of security by assuring them they had a 75% chance of winning. up until the results coming in they were still predicting democrats would even take back the senate.

then trump finally wins in a way that 0 of their articles or estimates predicted as happening. nate silver called two elections closely but this was a huge fuck up. the huge disparity between their predictions and how things played out call into doubt their entire premise.
it was within the margin of polling error. Trump's victories in a lot of state's were within 1-2% of hillary.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+698|4219|United States of America
When the Cubs were down 3-1, they had them at a 15% chance of winning the series. At that very time, their model had a 85-15% Clinton probability. I fail to see how offering a far from certain probabilistic chance of winning as "luring lefties into a sense of security". They were analyzing the polls with a model that actually had some wiggle room unlike the 90%, 95%, 98% Clinton percentages elsewhere. It's not surprising, as she was the favorite of two deeply unpopular candidates. A 70% chance to win is friendly odds in a casino, but if you're in an election, you shouldn't aim to just have enough gas to cross the finish line, you should be aiming to get those 90% odds across the board.

As Cybargs said, a lot of the states she lost were quite close, as well. The 30% chance did also come from the number of states that appeared to be toss-ups. Clinton would have been able to let go some of the swing states like Ohio or Pennsylvania, but Trump could not afford to lose those and stand a shot at winning. The way it played out, he squeaked by her in state after state. Think of the odds if she only had to win, say, 3 toss-ups whereas Trump would have to win 7. Which is the more likely outcome?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3640|eXtreme to the maX
This one, and I read books and make up my own mind.

I can't be bothered with hearing the opinions of journalists who are either opinionated or just knocking out verbiage to pay the bills, or both.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,592|3640|eXtreme to the maX

SuperJail Warden wrote:

they spent the primary repeatedly writing articles about how trump was going to lose the primary. one of their articles was literally "stop panicking. trump is not going to win the primary".

when the general election rolled around, they lured lefties into a sense of security by assuring them they had a 75% chance of winning. up until the results coming in they were still predicting democrats would even take back the senate.

then trump finally wins in a way that 0 of their articles or estimates predicted as happening. nate silver called two elections closely but this was a huge fuck up. the huge disparity between their predictions and how things played out call into doubt their entire premise.
People think they're going to win then they sit back and don't bother voting.

I blame the media.
Your virus system is infected with windows. Please to be giving me your credit card details urgently

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2017 Jeff Minard