The Match Cut Presidential Dog and Pony Show

[Irish]

Year one, third party virgin cares about this candidate or that.
Year two, anybody but R or D.
Year three, write in Weird Al, Jesus, a claw hammer, a plastic bucket, just please for the love of everything dont buy into the two party lie....

Missed this the first time around but wanted to say that I think Mr Plastic Bucket definitely has a strong future in politics.

[Mysterious Dude]

A popular vote would mean that New York and California would decide every single presidential election.

George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 despite losing New York and California.

Furthermore, a popular vote would mean that NO states would decide the election. Voters would decide. Many voters in both of those states are currently made irrelevant by the electoral college.

[Irish]

George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 despite losing New York and California.

Furthermore, a popular vote would mean that NO states would decide the election. Voters would decide.

Yeah, see, that's what I dunno. Changes to the system will likely bring changes to behavior and it's hard to tell, based on the current model, what those might be.

Good point about Bush 04. Lemme broaden my point to "The biggest population centers (like, maybe the top 5? or top 10? on this list) would decide the election."

This almost feels counterintuitive because a large part of the US government is designed around giving smaller states/ lower populations an equal voice.

[Gittes]

Yeah, these last few posts of mine are longwinded, I'm long-winded about everything, etc.

Bolding some of this to compensate for the length.

lol, okay.

Your combination of those quoted messages does not bear out a valid point from your end.

Let me break this down. You indicated that the asperity of my past comments — you were speaking generally, I believe — precluded an earnest response from you in the current discussion (I think this is a transparent dodge because it doesn't really address my opening post in this thread, where I accurately described your remarks; I didn't even use "stupid" at first). I noted that your own brand of asperity had indeed elicited some cantankerous replies from me in our previous exchanges (the ones separate from the current discussion). Then, while we were on this side-path from the main point, I more specifically detailed the motivation for that past cantankerousness by stating, "I detected some contempt due to the forceful way you kept dismissing my posts, and that offended me." I could also have referred to your no quarter writing style, your occasionally uncharitable tendencies, etc.

If you want to discuss my past responses to you — some of which might be regrettable, some of which might be justified — where I got irritable because of the way you communicate, then let's do that only insofar as it reasonably connects back to this discussion (or we can discuss it separately on another day). My previous irritability in our other discussions was not unmotivated or wholly unjustified. At any rate, none of this automatically means that my criticisms regarding your quips about Duca and Teen Vogue lack credibility or justification. None of this changes a crucial point: If your remarks in this thread were "stupid" — by the way, I'm not surprised that this one word is what you ended up focusing on instead of my point — then I think I have a right to describe them as such, especially after your dismissive response to my criticism. Your frustrations in this thread are not all misplaced, but as far as Duca and Teen Vogue are concerned, they are. You made careless, condescending remarks about a magazine and its readership, as well as a legitimate, female writer — whose age should not be used as a putdown — trying to find footing in a competitive freelance economy. I was irritated as soon as I read the comments and debated over whether or not I could afford to expend the stress and energy needed to respond, but I'm glad I did.

You want people to either spare you warranted criticism or to offer it gingerly. But, you see, I used a harsher descriptor ("stupid") only after you began insultingly dodging any thoughtful acknowledgment of what you said. This was after I made a post that didn't cast aside your entire post, let alone all of your contributions to this forum. So, to the point of redundancy, let's be clear: Why did I incorporate "stupid" into the discussion? Among other things, it was replies like this one: "I really don't give a shit, bro." It's at that point that I felt a more straightforward, blunt assessment of your rhetorical hiccup was necessary ("hiccup" is being generous, given the strain — conscious or otherwise — of reverse ageism that I have detected in your posts; this one seemed rather deliberate, too). I think that uptick in severity from my end was justifiable as a valid description of the remarks you were aggressively shrugging off.

You're collapsing context in favour of deceptively tidy dismissals. I reasonably addressed your ignorant remarks without calling you stupid (the latter is something that you have actually done to another user, and yet you can't brook having even one comment of yours justifiably get the same treatment). Moreover, even if my opening post is regarded as being, in certain respects, an extension of the negative features of our interactions on this forum, none of that should preclude you from addressing a valid criticism that was accompanied by elaborate detail, and that was not without charitable aspects. I think you're deflecting by latching onto past imperfections as well as anything in this discussion that you think you can use to steer the conversation off course (which part of the first post, besides maybe the "message board career" comment, was not carefully stated?). You're trying to dodge a legitimate criticism.

This was fun but I'm done

Ridiculous response. Your studied, self-serving pose is insultingly incongruous with your earlier comments. What other choice do you have but saying "I'm done," right? Please. To recap, since you seem to be wilfully avoiding the key point: Your comments were insensitive and clueless because the implication was that Teen Vogue can't or shouldn't feature writing on politics, and that the author of a politically-oriented article ought to be viewed askance and referred to in a condescending way because of her association with Teen Vogue and because of her age. Sadly, it appears engaging with your error — instead of evading the topic via over the top indifference and other distractions — is inexplicably out of the question for you.

In other words: I justifiably criticized your comments, but you thought it was alright to ignore them. Apparently, you think determined insouciance is better in this case. That's disappointing.

[transmogrifier]

Irish vs. Gittes is my favorite sport.

[Irish]

Irish vs. Gittes is my favorite sport.

lol, wtf, it's not irish vs anybody!

apparently i impugned the honor of a teen vogue writer + that was enough to be on the receiving end of matchcut's own little huac and a 2,000 word screed.

[Gittes]

Speculative readings of the latest deflections (and a much more important comment at the very bottom of the post):

"lol, wtf" = "I'm writing in lower case because I aggressively want you to know that I think this is unimportant!"

"it's not irish vs anybody!" = "I haven't even been replying to his posts! That wasn't me. I'm not even talking about this right now. Really!"

"I'm done" = "OK, I'm not actually done; I realize he has a point, albeit a longwinded one, but it doesn't compute with the demands of my ego."

"little huac" = "Here's an unjustified, silly comment. I guess I really wasn't done."

Worst of all, though, is that Irish just opted to double down on his evasiveness as well as the stupid remarks he is still refusing to earnestly acknowledge, all while adding another dollop of petulance.

[[ETM]]

You cannot out-Irish Irish. Give up.

[transmogrifier]

lol, wtf, it's not irish vs anybody!

apparently i impugned the honor of a teen vogue writer + that was enough to be on the receiving end of matchcut's own little huac and a 2,000 word screed.

Just 2000 words? He's not as into you as I thought.

[/notstirring]

[bac0n]

For those without the time/stamina to read through the last few posts, I have summarized the latest spat with this brilliant venn diagram.

[transmogrifier]

I would just like to point out that I was merely standing on the sidelines, slinging mud. I don't have (a) the intelligence nor (b) the energy to take on the other two in a full-on game of battleprose.

Although I do have to say, I think I got the lucky side of that diagram.

[number8]

These are divisive times.

[ledfloyd]

- Policy wonks tend to get lost in the weeds and forget what the policies are supposed to for. People want services from their government. They want free shit, and they want it to be frictionless. Social Security and Medicare are good examples of "free shit without friction." You don't have to do anything, really, to benefit from those programs. Nebulous tax credits and legislation like Obamacare, on the other hand, are pure wonkbait; they rarely deliver actual relief. They are mealy mouth policy disguised as help, and they mean "fill out forms and wait" instead of the more direct "money in your pocket."

Maybe I have the definition of policy wonk wrong. But a lot of the wonks I know want to see fewer tax deductions (a simpler tax code), tax credits like the EITC are in fact frictionless. If your beef is with people who want overcomplicated solutions to relatively simple problems (a complex net of in-kind programs instead of cash transfers, etc.), then I'm right there with you.

- On election night, The New York Times had a page that reported the results in "real time." They had a bunch of fancy graphics with maps, charts, and dials -- several of which jittered and moved (see my post here). Turns out, all those movements and changing dials were fake. It was scripted animation tied to the reader's CPU, not real results. The New York Times did that to make the page stickier, to increase "engagement." It worked, but doing shit like that is dirty and nowhere near actual journalism.

Not that I'm doubting you, but I didn't see any reports questioning the legitimacy of the dials. I thought the jittering was representing the margin of error.

- The Washington Post published an article reporting on a group called "PropOrNot," which alleged that they had research and evidence that a whole slew of independent media outlets were pushing propaganda and "fake news" that "benefitted Russia." They even had a list! While some of the named outlets were fringe weirdos, more than a few were legit third-party outlets who were both well known and award-winning. This didn't matter though, because the Washington Post reported everything PropOrNot claimed without fact checking any of it. Meanwhile, the people running PropOrNot remained anonymous, and their "research" never materialized. It was pure red-baiting bullshit and, ironically, would have fit anyone's definition of "fake news." The editors at the Post later tacked an addendum onto the article, but never retracted it.

Totally agree that this was a fuck-up. But it's one story. They did a ton of great reporting this election cycle. Especially David Farenthold.

- A week or so after the PropOrNot piece, The Washington Post reported that CIA sources claimed "Russia hacked the election" and put Donald Trump in office. This was more red-bait bullshit, because their only source was both unofficial and anonymous and there was zero direct evidence. But instead of digging, they published a story they didn't really have (which is, like, a Journalism 101 mistake) and other big media outlets ran with it. (NPR claimed they they had "independently confirmed" the story, but their report too was based on anonymous sources and zero hard evidence.) This isn't just sloppy, it's dangerous. This nebulously sourced story became "true" after it was repeated enough times across the media spectrum, and eventually it trickled down to even small outlets like Teen Vogue, whose "fiery op-ed" opened with the line, "The CIA officially determined that Russia intervened in our election" --- except, that's even an accurate reflection of the original story. (Teen Vogue has since, after all the retweets, likes, and kudos they received online, changed their lede). The whole thing is like a bad game of 'telephone,' except there's superpowers and nukes involved.

Are you alleging that Russia did not intervene in our election? Isn't that what hacking the DNC and releasing the emails was? The CIA did state that Russia hacked the DNC.

And as someone who just completed a bachelor's degree in journalism, I don't know if I would say it's "journalism 101." I wouldn't run a one anonymous source story unless I verified it with other anonymous sources or had absolute confidence in that source (by continually getting information from them in the past that checked out) and felt the story was immensely important to the public. Also, unlike the ProporNot story, a story like this is likely vetted by editors at the highest levels. I have trust in Marty Baron.

No one from the CIA has come out and said the story is false, which is telling.

[ledfloyd]

George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004 despite losing New York and California.

Furthermore, a popular vote would mean that NO states would decide the election. Voters would decide. Many voters in both of those states are currently made irrelevant by the electoral college.

But the popular vote wouldn't be the same if the rules were different. Trump made no effort to cut into Clinton's lead in CA or to run get out the vote efforts in dark red states.

To further Irish's baseball analogy. If the game is to get the most hits, you're not going to bunt and sac fly to get more runs. Forgoing campaigning in CA and TX is bunting.

[Mysterious Dude]

But the popular vote wouldn't be the same if the rules were different. Trump made no effort to cut into Clinton's lead in CA or to run get out the vote efforts in dark red states.

To further Irish's baseball analogy. If the game is to get the most hits, you're not going to bunt and sac fly to get more runs. Forgoing campaigning in CA and TX is bunting.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the rules should be retroactively changed for the 2016 election. I'm saying that they are not good rules.

The rules of baseball have been changed many times since the game was first conceived.

[amberlita]

I just want to say that I've really enjoyed reading the discussion between Irish and DaMU, Isaac, Skitch, etc. Nice to have some good discussion back, even if I don't agree with some of what is said. It's annoying that it's now turned into the same old crap and given the excellent exchanges between Irish and those others I mentioned, I think it's clear that it's not exactly his fault. I don't understand why a handful of people seem to insist on climbing up his ass and making him feel unwelcome every time he posts for longer a few day stretch. Not trying to jump into the fray. Just trying to voice that I am someone who actually doesn't find this particular entertaining and am just annoyed there's a large stretch of exchanges I have to try to annoy while trying to catch the good stuff in between.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I just want to say that I've really enjoyed reading the discussion between Irish and DaMU, Isaac, Skitch, etc. Nice to have some good discussion back, even if I don't agree with some of what is said. It's annoying that it's now turned into the same old crap and given the excellent exchanges between Irish and those others I mentioned, I think it's clear that it's not exactly his fault. I don't understand why a handful of people seem to insist on climbing up his ass and making him feel unwelcome every time he posts for longer a few day stretch. Not trying to jump into the fray. Just trying to voice that I am someone who actually doesn't find this particular entertaining and am just annoyed there's a large stretch of exchanges I have to try to annoy while trying to catch the good stuff in between.

I think some of us have been around for a longer time and better know how to interact with each other and when to take things seriously.

[Gittes]

Just trying to voice that I am someone who actually doesn't find this particular entertaining and am just annoyed there's a large stretch of exchanges I have to try to annoy while trying to catch the good stuff in between.

Please pardon another notch in that "large stretch." I want to address your words with compunction. I realize you're not trying to get involved in the discussion I started, so you can of course feel free to move on past this comment. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for compromising your experience of this thread (that's not snark; I'm being sincere). Admittedly, I don't completely understand why any given thread cannot include objections to the content being posted. However, I do apologize that these particular diversions from the discussion became so longwinded. I'm sorry this was irksome for some of you. I don't regret believing — and still believing — that my point warranted some of the space in this thread, but it's dispiriting to read posts like the one you just made, so I do owe you an apology. I wish this had ended up being a briefer exchange. Instead, deflections on one side led to more detail on the other.

I'm glad you opted to comment on this situation without making a diminishing joke (while I don't think it's necessarily helpful, I can understand why some folks opted for that approach). I put thought and care into my original post and hoped it would elicit something less grossly dismissive from Irish. His deflections and his "I really don't give a shit, bro" responses struck me as incongruent and absurd, and my inclination at that point — to the irritation of some, to the bemusement of others, but hopefully there's something like understanding mixed in there — was to defend my point and provide more detail. I also aimed to be substantive in my replies. I don't appreciate that you reduced everything involved here to "the same old crap," but, at the same time, I understand your overall frustration.

I'm an easy mark for trolls (not saying that's what Irish acts like all the time) because I'm argumentative and, when I believe in a point and it's poorly challenged, I often think it's worthwhile to supply more detail and explanation, rather than just opting out of the discussion entirely. I have allergies to condescension, too. As to the reasons why Irish receives negative attention: if you're earnestly wondering, I think I made it clear why it happened in this instance, and others have offered thoughts about why it has happened in other situations. There are many examples of his skirmishes with many folks on this forum (nearly everyone?), and those can probably be examined to yield an understanding of how his occasionally combustible temperament and, at times, uncharitably forceful writing style might be key factors in some of those blowups. Does that mean he has never received unfair responses on this forum? No. You have to consider the context of each situation. In this case, his communicative style provided us with a mean-spirited quip about Duca and Teen Vogue.

[Gittes]

I think some of us have been around for a longer time and better know how to interact with each other and when to take things seriously.

Please don't diminish the validity of my point by assuming forum-specific, social maladjustment. Irish is someone whose posts I've been reading for years now. That's why I can refer to what I perceive as — deliberate or otherwise — shades of reverse ageism in some of his other posts (this is a more recent detection of mine; IIRC, the post I took issue with in this thread is the most flagrant example of those shades). It's also why I can comment on other aspects like the monotonously forceful and merciless way he frequently expresses himself (I first observed this a while ago). Some of the characteristics of his style do not pair well with, for instance, what could have otherwise been a straightforward, respectful expression of dislike about an article. Through Irish's emphatic lens, that expression acquired a few unwelcome appendages. It should have been about the content, but he unjustifiably made a cruel comment about a writer because of her age and his close-minded estimation of Teen Vogue.

EDIT: DaMU — I reread this and I'm now not entirely sure that my opening sentence is a fair reading of your post. I actually don't know what to make of your post. The "when to take things seriously" bit does seem to indicate that you believe I shouldn't have taken something seriously here, but I won't probe that since it's a vague point within your sentence. My apologies if I misconstrued your intended meaning and if my reply was unwarranted as a result.

[number8]

[TGM]

Can't help but think of Elvis and Nixon reading those tweets.

[Spinal]

No. No. Fuck you, Kanye.

[Ezee E]

Kanye's desparate for attention for whatever reason is going on in his life. Cancelled half his tour, carted off to a mental hospital after a return to Los Angeles.

[Irish]

Not that I'm doubting you, but I didn't see any reports questioning the legitimacy of the dials. I thought the jittering was representing the margin of error.

It wasn't reported afaik. I only knew about it because I work in tech and follow a bunch of people in the industry on twitter. Somebody posted a screen shot of the page's code (the variable in question was actually name 'Jitter').

Are you alleging that Russia did not intervene in our election? Isn't that what hacking the DNC and releasing the emails was? The CIA did state that Russia hacked the DNC.

Part of the problem with this story -- and all the reporting around it -- is that it was too easy to reduce the entire thing to "Russia hacked the election." But what exactly does that mean? Are they talking about the Wikileaks dump? Or are they talking about the liberal conspiracy theory that Russia literally hacked voting machines in the midwest?

The Wikileaks thing was sketchy as hell. I don't think there was enough public evidence to lay blame (although, yeah: probably the Russians). I also think it's debatable how much impact that actually had at the polls.

Alleging that Russian agents of one form or another fed Podesta's gmail account to Wikileaks is very different than claiming "Russia hacked the election."

And as someone who just completed a bachelor's degree in journalism, I don't know if I would say it's "journalism 101." I wouldn't run a one anonymous source story unless I verified it with other anonymous sources or had absolute confidence in that source (by continually getting information from them in the past that checked out) and felt the story was immensely important to the public.

Ahaha, you never should have told us you were a journo. (As an amateur hack who follows that industry, I will probably be peppering you with questions in the future.)

But yeah -- my understanding was that you don't go with a story unless you have two independent confirmations, and preferable one or both of them is "on the record." This CIA thing was a anonymous leak, and it was a leak that had political shades to it.

I think they Washington Post didn't have the story, and publishing it on the heels of the PropOrNot thing was irresponsible.

No one from the CIA has come out and said the story is false, which is telling.

Institutionally, the CIA never "confirms or denies" anything. It's part of their schtick. The Washington Post knows this, too, which throws another wrinkle into the story.

[number8]

Sassy NY Times:

President-elect Donald J. Trump plans to name former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas to lead the Energy Department, elevating a man who once could not remember the name of the agency he wanted to eliminate to the cabinet post, secretary of energy, that will run it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us...ary-trump.html