Gyroscopic Investing

boglerdude wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:23 am > favorable to conservatives and libertarians

Oh no!

Jack Jones wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:08 pm

boglerdude wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:23 am > favorable to conservatives and libertarians

Oh no!

Where I'm from, the locals are terrified of libertarians. Democrats, Republicans, they can understand. Libertarians are a huge boogeyman for some reason.

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:39 pm Holy smoke, it's all broken wide open. There is absolutely no surviving this by the dems. They're done. Right now.
https://rumble.com/v27yyq2-joe-biden-is ... n&mc=6kk5f

flyingpylon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:47 pm

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 12:39 pm Holy smoke, it's all broken wide open. There is absolutely no surviving this by the dems. They're done. Right now.
https://rumble.com/v27yyq2-joe-biden-is ... n&mc=6kk5f

Well... don't get yourself too invested in potential outcomes.

Maddy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 3:40 pm So after three weeks of debate over whether to search Pence's home, they finally decide to do it. And after three weeks of notice, they find classified documents.

This is getting absurd.

Xan wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:14 pm

Maddy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 3:40 pm
So after three weeks of debate over whether to search Pence's home, they finally decide to do it. And after three weeks of notice, they find classified documents.

This is getting absurd.

Maybe they should just search the homes of everyone who's ever had access to classified documents. So far there's a 100% hit rate.

Can't they be fitted with some kind of radio tag or some such?

yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:17 pm

Xan wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:14 pm

Maddy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 3:40 pm So after three weeks of debate over whether to search Pence's home, they finally decide to do it. And after three weeks of notice, they find classified documents.

This is getting absurd.

Maybe they should just search the homes of everyone who's ever had access to classified documents. So far there's a 100% hit rate.

Can't they be fitted with some kind of radio tag or some such?

Or, maybe first there should be a grand review of what should be "classified"? I think I've read more opinion that too much is classified and none that there is not enough. Perhaps the default is to just declare it classified?

Ambitious media frauds Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair crippled the reputations of the New Republic and New York Times, respectively, by slipping years of invented news stories into their pages. Thanks to the Twitter Files, we can welcome a new member to their infamous club: Hamilton 68.

If one goes by volume alone, this oft-cited neoliberal think-tank that spawned hundreds of fraudulent headlines and TV news segments may go down as the single greatest case of media fabulism in American history. Virtually every major news organization in America is implicated, including NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and the Washington Post. Mother Jones alone did at least 14 stories pegged to the group’s “research.” Even fact-checking sites like Politifact and Snopes cited Hamilton 68 as a source.

Hamilton 68 was and is a computerized “dashboard” designed to be used by reporters and academics to measure “Russian disinformation.” link

This was not faulty science. It was a scam. Instead of tracking how “Russia” influenced American attitudes, Hamilton 68 simply collected a handful of mostly real, mostly American accounts, and described their organic conversations as Russian scheming. As Roth put it, “Virtually any conclusion drawn from [the dashboard] will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.”

Even at Twitter, where there were basically no open conservatives in the email record, it was recognized that Hamilton 68 (and at least two other research institutes using similar methodology) were simply taking organic Trumpish chatter and describing it as Russian scheming.

The site “falsely accuses a bunch of legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots,” as Roth put it, getting “traction around partisan trends, to assert that any right-leaning content is propagated by Russian bots.”
. . .
News organizations had fallen in love with a new trick: research institute makes invented bot claims, reporters toss said claims at hated targets like Devin Nunes or Tulsi Gabbard, headlines flow. The scam needed just three elements: credentials of someone like “former FBI agent” Watts, the absence of any semblance of fact-checking, and the silence of companies like Twitter.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 6:44 am It might take a while for this knowledge to percolate through (it will definitely be fought by corporate media/Democratic Party), but I think eventually most people will come to grips with it.