The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old Yesterday, 01:17 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
I'd say she hid it very well indeed. I'm pretty sure you are the only person smart enough to have discovered that it was actually Maddow who was behind all those polls, including Fox News, that showed Clinton ahead by 3-5 points right up to the election.
You have not provided answers to the questions I've asked of you.
Specifically, assuming you showed your 85-year old mother (who has trouble understanding the scoring on Dancing With the Stars) that video of Rachel Maddow, holding a piece of paper and assuring her viewers (at 0:49 mark) that "this is real polling firm" and "this is legit methodology", did your mother understand at that point that Rachel Maddow is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?
Additionally, when the same Rachel Maddow in the same video claims (from 00:00 to 00:30 mark) that "Even if Donald Trump has the best day ever, he's still not going to be the President", did your mother understand at that point that Rachel Maddow is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?
As a bonus point, the same video features a young gentleman, apparently a colleage of Rachel, prancing around the screen (from around 03:00 to 05:45 mark), explaining to the viewers how Hillary Clinton is going to win Electoral College by 363 to 175 votes. I don't know his name (although, reverse-googling reveals that the most appropriate name is probably "Emo Cuck"), but you gotta admire the fact that while prancing, Emo has the sleeves of his shirt all rolled up just to show the viewers how much hard work and factual assesment went into his analyses. Did your mother realize that Emo is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
I don't really like Maddow that much; however, out of curiosity, do you get your news from: 1) Fox, 2) Breitbart/Infowars or 3) Sputnik News/RT?


Not sure what relevance it has here, but sure...
For the past 6 months or so, I've been getting my news from Huffington Post. I usually skim their headlines every morning and apply negative operator to it. In other words, if HuffPo reports something, then the opposite is most likely to be true. I started doing that ever since HuffPo published their brilliant Election Forecast giving Hillary Clinton 98% chance of victory. Their reasoning is flawless: after all, they ran their simulation 10 million(!) times.
Of course, the real process undoubtedly looked like this:

(Some young and eager HuffPo hack): Let's print this garbage I just typed up and claim Hillary has 100% chance of victory! 110% even!
(Seasoned HuffPo hack): No, no, no. No one would believe that...Let's just stick with 99% figure. On second thought, let's be bold and make it 98%. Yep, 98% should do just fine. No one will doubt our objectivity, if we go that low!
(Young and eager HuffPo hack): Yes! Smart, very smart! And we'll also say that we ran our simulation 100 trillion times! To make it all scientific and stuff!
(Seasoned HuffPo hack): Much learn you have, young padawan... Make it 100 million. Nay, 10 million should be enough.
(Young and eager HuffPo hack): Brilliant! Simply brilliant! You're really in touch with America, oh Seasoned HuffPo hack!
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #252  
Old Yesterday, 01:24 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Smug, eh?....



And yet, you've formed an opinion.
Here's some more speculation, for you.

I would speculate that if RM would be careful to note repeatedly that she's only guessing, and to stress when she's not personally familiar with what she's commenting about, that people might not accuse her of being smug.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old Yesterday, 01:34 PM
SingleMalt SingleMalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
You have not provided answers to the questions I've asked of you.
Specifically, assuming you showed your 85-year old mother (who has trouble understanding the scoring on Dancing With the Stars) that video of Rachel Maddow, holding a piece of paper and assuring her viewers (at 0:49 mark) that "this is real polling firm" and "this is legit methodology", did your mother understand at that point that Rachel Maddow is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?
Additionally, when the same Rachel Maddow in the same video claims (from 00:00 to 00:30 mark) that "Even if Donald Trump has the best day ever, he's still not going to be the President", did your mother understand at that point that Rachel Maddow is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?
As a bonus point, the same video features a young gentleman, apparently a colleage of Rachel, prancing around the screen (from around 03:00 to 05:45 mark), explaining to the viewers how Hillary Clinton is going to win Electoral College by 363 to 175 votes. I don't know his name (although, reverse-googling reveals that the most appropriate name is probably "Emo Cuck"), but you gotta admire the fact that while prancing, Emo has the sleeves of his shirt all rolled up just to show the viewers how much hard work and factual assesment went into his analyses. Did your mother realize that Emo is bullshitting her and is a shameless alt-left propagandist, and not a journalist?





Not sure what relevance it has here, but sure...
For the past 6 months or so, I've been getting my news from Huffington Post. I usually skim their headlines every morning and apply negative operator to it. In other words, if HuffPo reports something, then the opposite is most likely to be true. I started doing that ever since HuffPo published their brilliant Election Forecast giving Hillary Clinton 98% chance of victory. Their reasoning is flawless: after all, they ran their simulation 10 million(!) times.
Of course, the real process undoubtedly looked like this:

(Some young and eager HuffPo hack): Let's print this garbage I just typed up and claim Hillary has 100% chance of victory! 110% even!
(Seasoned HuffPo hack): No, no, no. No one would believe that...Let's just stick with 99% figure. On second thought, let's be bold and make it 98%. Yep, 98% should do just fine. No one will doubt our objectivity, if we go that low!
(Young and eager HuffPo hack): Yes! Smart, very smart! And we'll also say that we ran our simulation 100 trillion times! To make it all scientific and stuff!
(Seasoned HuffPo hack): Much learn you have, young padawan... Make it 100 million. Nay, 10 million should be enough.
(Young and eager HuffPo hack): Brilliant! Simply brilliant! You're really in touch with America, oh Seasoned HuffPo hack!

Wow. Another glurge of right-wing wankery.

Maddow was wrong in her prediction. So were a lot of people. But you accused her of lying. Let's see your examples.

And really, you need to get over the election. Trump won the electoral count, and Clinton had the higher popular vote count. It's time to turn your calendar to March, 2017. Trumpcare cratering hard and the Russia involvement are all the rage now.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old Yesterday, 02:24 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Here's some more speculation, for you.

I would speculate that if RM would be careful to note repeatedly that she's only guessing, and to stress when she's not personally familiar with what she's commenting about, that people might not accuse her of being smug.
So, is that a good general guideline, or only as it applies to RM?
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old Yesterday, 04:12 PM
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
"insufferably smug" is when it's directed at you. When it's directed at the other guys, that same smugness can be very sufferable indeed.

I'm guessing when people praise her for explaining things. it's (for the most part) not that they personally feel their own understanding is enhanced. It's that they feel she made a very compelling case as to why her (and their) position is correct, such that many misguided people who failed to understand the issue would come to the true understanding via her "explanation". But again, that's a guess - I've never seen her show.
Maybe you should watch something before you pontificate?

I'm guessing she's reporting on things that Fox refuses to address that are happening in the world and merit actual attention as opposed to (The war on christmas) or (An illegal immigrant killed someone) some comparative nonsense. I don't see the false equivalencies here. Oh yeah: they're false.

Smug is not an exact word, but it seems to be the conventional wisdom around here, that she's "smug" or something. Sorry, straight dope, this is why you earn your name. I have no use for received opinions from pretend egos.

Come up with a cite for her smugness. The 2016 cite where she is explaining current polling is supposed to be a something burger or something? Do better.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old Yesterday, 07:26 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
Show your 85-year old mother this video of Rachel Maddow and then please let us know what her opinion was, and whether your mother was able to follow every word of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut0TaegQ-kw

She lies openly, blatantly and with reckless disregard for truth.
Actually, I think people are letting you off way to easy here. That video is typical of the level of right-wing thought and "evidence". There are no dates associated with the various quotes. So, they are throwing out things that Maddow and colleagues said possibly at times when the race was way less tight (e.g., right after the Trump "pussy" tape was released) and using it that as evidence that she was wrong on election night. It was that the tightness of the race oscillated during the election cycle (see, for example, here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...forecast/#plus)

At this point, you haven't even shown evidence that Rachel Maddow was remarkably off in her assessment of the race at the time when she made various statements (although such evidence might...or might not...exist), let alone that she was lying. Your video is essentially a total right-wing train wreck, just like the Trump Presidency is turning out to be.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old Yesterday, 08:01 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Got something very insightful to say, but its 7:59, so you guys will just have to wait. Sorry,
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old Today, 01:16 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
Wow. Another glurge of right-wing wankery.
Maddow was wrong in her prediction. So were a lot of people. But you accused her of lying. Let's see your examples.
The examples are in the video provided:
1. When Maddow waves a piece of paper around and claims that it is legitimate polling data, she's lying. It is not legitimate polling data.
2. When Maddow further claims that even if Donald Trump has his best day ever, he's still losing the election, that is also a lie. Donald Trump didn't have the best day ever, yet easily beat his opponent.
3. Since Rachel Maddow is clearly a failure as a journalist, she'd be much better employed sticking to elderly chubby-chasing
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old Today, 01:24 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
By the way, was Rachel Maddow one of the "journalists" (a very loose definition here) exposed by Wikileaks as taking direct marching orders from Clinton's headquarters?
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old Today, 01:26 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
The examples are in the video provided:
1. When Maddow waves a piece of paper around and claims that it is legitimate polling data, she's lying. It is not legitimate polling data.
2. When Maddow further claims that even if Donald Trump has his best day ever, he's still losing the election, that is also a lie. Donald Trump didn't have the best day ever, yet easily beat his opponent.
3. Since Rachel Maddow is clearly a failure as a journalist, she'd be much better employed sticking to elderly chubby-chasing
1. Then what is it?
2. As has already been 'splained to you, if that is what you call a "lie" then many right-wingers lied also.
3. Yeah...that's gonna win you points.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old Today, 01:27 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
By the way, was Rachel Maddow one of the "journalists" (a very loose definition here) exposed by Wikileaks as taking direct marching orders from Clinton's headquarters?
Do you know, or are you "just asking questions"?
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old Today, 01:31 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
1. Then what is it?
2. As has already been 'splained to you, if that is what you call a "lie" then many right-wingers lied also.
3. Yeah...that's gonna win you points.
1. Who knows what is? Some cockamamie piece of paper Rachel found jammed in the office's printer? One thing it certainly is NOT is "legitimate polling data".
2. Oh, the humanity. Are we in agreement here that Rachel Maddow is a liar?
3. It's hard to spot the difference

Last edited by negono; Today at 01:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old Today, 01:32 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you know, or are you "just asking questions"?

Do you know the answer or you're just questioning the question?
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old Today, 01:37 PM
ThisIsTheEnd ThisIsTheEnd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
All 3 of these men were lying to 85 year old mothers.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old Today, 01:37 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
1. Who knows what is? Some cockamamie piece of paper Rachel found jammed in the office's printer? One thing it certainly is NOT is "legitimate polling data".
2. Oh, the humanity. Are we in agreement here that Rachel Maddow is a liar?
3. It's hard to spot the difference
1. so it is established that you have no fucking idea what is on that paper.
2. So it is established that you have no fucking idea what the difference between "wrong" and "lie" is.
3. So it is established that you have no fucking couth.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old Today, 01:41 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
Do you know the answer or you're just questioning the question?
So...I guess we can assume until shown otherwise that you are just "JAQ"ing.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old Today, 01:46 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
1. so it is established that you have no fucking idea what is on that paper.
2. So it is established that you have no fucking idea what the difference between "wrong" and "lie" is.
3. So it is established that you have no fucking couth.


1. so it is established that you have no fucking idea why Rachel tried to convince her gullible audience that a random piece of paper she most likely picked in the office's bathroom is "legitimate polling data"
2. So it is established that you have no fucking idea what reading comprehension is.
3. So it is established that you have no fucking idea why Rachel likes elderly chubbies but hates objective reporting.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old Today, 01:49 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
You are the one that claimed to know what wasn't on that piece of paper, not me
How do you know?

edited to add: You know those sites that cheer you on the more you spew unsubstantiated crap?
This ain't one of them.

Last edited by Czarcasm; Today at 01:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old Today, 01:55 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
You are the one that claimed to know what wasn't on that piece of paper, not me
How do you know?
If you're desperately trying to convince yourself that Rachel Maddow used "legitimate polling data" when making ridiculous statements, like "even if Donald Trump wins all battleground states, he's still losing the election", I can't help you

Going slightly off-topic, do you think it is Rachel's repulsive personality that's responsible not only for making her show unwatchable, but also for her inability to attract a semi-decent looking guy/girl/whatever she's into?
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old Today, 01:59 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
If you're desperately trying to convince yourself that Rachel Maddow used "legitimate polling data" when making ridiculous statements, like "even if Donald Trump wins all battleground states, he's still losing the election", I can't help you

Going slightly off-topic, do you think it is Rachel's repulsive personality that's responsible not only for making her show unwatchable, but also for her inability to attract a semi-decent looking guy/girl/whatever she's into?
Off-topic, and rather juvenile.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old Today, 02:25 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Off-topic, and rather juvenile.
It's not as off-topic as you might think. She's clearly rich, successful (money-wise, since obviously she lost whatever reputation as a journalist she once might have had), but yet she fits the stereotype of a miserable, bitter and unfulfilled lesbian.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old Today, 02:40 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
It's not as off-topic as you might think. She's clearly rich, successful (money-wise, since obviously she lost whatever reputation as a journalist she once might have had), but yet she fits the stereotype of a miserable, bitter and unfulfilled lesbian.
If you want to start a hate thread about her in The BBQ Pit, go right ahead. I'm not going to stoop to that here.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old Today, 02:40 PM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,453
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by negono View Post
It's not as off-topic as you might think. She's clearly rich, successful (money-wise, since obviously she lost whatever reputation as a journalist she once might have had), but yet she fits the stereotype of a miserable, bitter and unfulfilled lesbian.
negono - you specifically, drop the topic of Maddow in this thread. It's threadshitting. Feel free to discuss other relevant topics like the tax retirns, etc.

[/ moderating]

Last edited by Bone; Today at 02:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old Today, 02:46 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 37,038
Everyone will immediately remind themselves right away of what forum this thread is in. We're verging into personal attacks.

RickJay
Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old Today, 02:55 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
negono - you specifically, drop the topic of Maddow in this thread. It's threadshitting. Feel free to discuss other relevant topics like the tax retirns, etc.

[/ moderating]
I'll be happy to discuss tax returns.

1. In 2016, New York Times published this fake news article, claiming Donald Trump might not have paid taxes for nearly 2 decades, starting in 1995.
We now know that was a lie--Donald Trump clearly paid taxes in 2005.
Are there any indications that New York Times apologized to its readers for spreading fake news?

2. In the same year, Senator Bernie Sanders (admitedly a senile old man), claimed that not only Donald Trump is not going to win the elections (Senator Sanders presumably also used "legitimate polling data"), but that in 2017 he (Donald Trump) is going to start paying his "fair share" of taxes.
We now know that at least in 2005 Donald Trump paid almost twice as much taxes (percentage-wise, since, of course, in absolute terms Donald Trump contributed much more to US Treasury in a single year than Bernie has in his entire life) as Bernie Sanders did in 2014.
Are there any indications that Bernie Sanders apologized to Donald Trump for being a hypocrite?
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old Today, 03:07 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
1. At that time did anyone have any proof as to what he had or had not paid?
2. "Admittedly a senile old man"-Again with the off topic smears? Also, at that time did anyone know how much Trump had paid in taxes?

As far as I can determine, the only way you can justify these claims of "lying" is if you can show us that these people knew back then what we know now.
Did they?
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old Today, 03:22 PM
negono negono is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
1. At that time did anyone have any proof as to what he had or had not paid?
2. "Admittedly a senile old man"-Again with the off topic smears? Also, at that time did anyone know how much Trump had paid in taxes?

As far as I can determine, the only way you can justify these claims of "lying" is if you can show us that these people knew back then what we know now.
Did they?
I'm sorry but your logic is flawed. Let me show that to you by an example.

Let's say you visit New York City for a week in 2016. During that week, somewhere in the city, a child is kidnapped and murdered. In 2017, the criminal responsible (let's call him Joe Thug) is apprehended.
Now, would I be justified making statements back in 2016, before Joe Thug is captured, such as "Czarcasm might be a child murderer!" or "How do we know Czarcasm is NOT a murderer?" ? Absolutely not. Sure, technically speaking you "might" have been one (since you were in NYC on the dates in question), but to claim so would be highly irresponsible.
And that is the reason fake news published by NYT and the lies, spread by Bernie Sanders, are so dangerous. Technically speaking, they "might" be true, but of course any sane persons recognizes them as bold-faced lies.
It is very telling that neither NYT nor Bernie Sanders apologized yet for (let's be charitable here) misinforming their naive audience.

Last edited by negono; Today at 03:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old Today, 03:32 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 49,920
Was I near the scene, and did I have a past history that might indicate that I am capable of such a crime, and did I refuse to tell the police where I was at the time of the kidnapping/murder, or provide any evidence at all that could exonerate me? Did I do everything in my power to make myself look guilty, while telling everyone that getting away with as much as possible without paying the consequences was the sign of a "winner"?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.