If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
I'm not sure about the beginning of time thing. Sports thrived then because of the true value of them. It was the commercialization of sport that let the cat our of the bag leaving us today with the true life stories of struggling athletes that interrupt the joy of simply watching them perform.
It is obviously unfair to compare now to then, I agree. Sport as an increasing commodity has made it that much more enticing to create conducive narratives. And, more to your point, the capabilities that exist to push those narratives are insanely invasive in a way that we didn't even know just 5-8yrs ago.
That being said, for as long as sports have been a spectacle, they have been personified.
Just think: Pheidippides was romanticized the second he ran.
But not before he ran. Not before he achieved success. And not on the basis of who he liked to fuck.
Ha.
Well, no.
It wasn't a sporting event. He was conducting a mission. Not sure why the expectation for that example would be that it pertained to military operations. The point is, that act kicked off an understanding that people can be galvanized by details that extend beyond that act itself.
I think my previous post illustrates that I don't disagree: How invasive it is has reached undreamed of levels. But, pushing personal narratives seems like a pretty reasonable extension of what these events are, and have been, any way.
It isn't really new and it isn't surprising that they trend towards narratives that sell.
-more air time
-more adverts
-more productions
-more spinoffs
-more endorsements
-more viewers
-more hours on site time
Why do Investigation-denialists insist on hanging their hat on a fading hook?
You explain away Page like he is the singular linchpin. I wouldn't even waste the time to bother rebutting. Let's just grant that he was an FBI plant -- these two questions still have to have answers:
-Why does Clovis recruit him? Clovis was hand picked by Trump and wouldn't have been involved in any other administration. The guy is a clown. I don't need to elaborate.
-Why does Trump bring Page into NatSec? Why? Yes, the group ends up ballooning to 13, but of first 5.... Page is there. Page was known to be entangled with Kremlin (preceding Trump's existence in picture. Whether by FBI construction or plain stupidity -or , doesn't matter in terms of question *for me*... But, his motivations seem to indicate the latter.)
Even if you go ahead w/ "Page was embedded in the campaign" -- he only exists in the campaign cause of Clovis... And he only reaches the level he does within the campaign because of Trump. All of this while knowing Page was an idiot and had Russian associations. Please, don't tell me he was gift wrapped to clovis from Clinton or Obama. The convenience of that delusion would be unprecedented.
Can those two questions on Page be reliably answered in any way?
Then, if they can, the same line of questioning exists for:
Papadapolous:
-Plead guilty to a nothing charge (cooperation carrot)
-Trump claimed he was nobody (after claiming he didn't know him (NatSec promotion and flight manifests suggest otherwise. As well as Papa's idiotic propensity to brag about his WH purpose to Greek media and blabbing to AUS diplomat))
-Nevermind the fact that he is literally sitting at the NatSec table two seats from Sessions/four from Trump.
Manafort:
-I won't go into detail on this quagmire. It'd take too long and everything about him was known before being brought on by Trump. Was he gift wrapped by previous admin?
Flynn:
-Plead guilty to a nothing charge (cooperation carrot)
-Randomly ascended in place of Chris Christie... at the last minute... For no discernible reason (if this is all bullshit, then Trump's appointment of him is even stranger and unproductive)
I am anticipating you can have a conversation about 15% of this, the rest you will ignore/gloss over and attribute to "deep-state" or whatever the current blanket rebuttal is.
That is the increasing problem with denying Trump-Russia... All men listed above (and others) were PICKED and/or ENDORSED by Trump himself. Most of the men listed above were SADDLED w/ baggage that Trump was made aware of. Most of the men listed above (and others) raised eyebrows the moment their names were mentioned in terms of WH roles. Trump was responsible for landmining his admin with publicly understood red flags.
The timelines aren't a debate
The meetings aren't a debate
The flights aren't a debate
Where exactly is the dispute?
PS
Lambasting the Olympics for cultural tribalism... When sports have thrived on personalized narratives since the beginning of time... While simultaneously attributing any critique of current president to a subversive "attack by left" is , like, Walter-White Blue-Level crystal irony.
Also, gotta remember: America isn't real great at the winter olympics. We'd be shit if wasn't for the convenient inclusion of more modern sports -- most of which don't compare to the traditionals -- (caveat is speed skating. We've actually done a good job there)
Because for what you posted (the guy said the whole Russia collusion becomes clearier on his first tweet, followed by 75 additional tweets, seems fucking crazy to me) Page and Papapapappappapapapdopopoulous were the two central players for contacts with Russia. So that dude's 75 tweet psycho rant looks like this
what I posted is both an excerpt from the NYTimes article about who is Carter Page and of the court case, where the Times article says that Page was on the counter intelligence radar because he passed off energy documents directly to the Russians, and the court document said that the FBI undercover provided those same documents directly to the Russians.
Which is more believable? well if you don't know then you go with the most plausible, and I am so sorry, but 75 ranting, raving tweets laying out the theory of Russia collusion with Trump isn't plausible, and without Page your guy's conspiracy falls to shit.
But, pushing personal narratives seems like a pretty reasonable extension of what these events are, and have been, any way.
I don't think the point is that personal narratives aren't being pushed. That is the bedrock of Olympics broadcasting. People want to know who they're rooting or, more cynically, who to root for. The point was that the personal narratives are geared more to the social justice Gentry Left this go around. I haven't a clue if that's true or not in any sort of peer-based review sense. Nor do I particularly care if it is -- the Gentry Left led by Kapture are exactly the type of chuckleheads that love these faux sports, so why not market to your audience? I mean, are you really going to tell me that kapture isn't going to lap up the background story on a transgender free spirit aboriginee shuffling some sled down a hill? That's gold, Jerry. Gold.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Mr. Page, a businessman, met in 2013 with one of three Russians who were eventually charged with being undeclared officers with Russia’s foreign intelligence service.
You read that thinking it was a rant? It is definitely long, but one tweet doesn't do much w/o context.
He didn't have to include memes or anything -- the signal for short-attention span -- click bait kind of people.
The facts aren't mutually exclusive, btw. You'd know that if you took the 10 minute read. If you view Twitter as virtual pizza bagel bites, you are only going to get virtual pizza bagel bites. You strike me as a 2x pie guy, so, indulge yourself will you.
And, still no, the "conspiracy" (placing people where they are known to be -- at known times. Promoting people at known promotion times, in relation to travel to specific known meetings) doesn't have Page as in the linchpin. Something you continually to push, erroneously (very similarly to ensuring an intel cable is first and foremost defined by which nation they hail from. Because we should be pursuing intel cables only domestically.... /s)
Again, I get it. If we are simply going to stand by what we believed to be true at time X in the face of new facts in time Y, then we'll just call it what it is: What is the word for that?
But, still: These men were chosen and elevated by Trump or Trump proxies.
Why? They aren't all trojan horses planted by previous admin. Trump endorsed these men and gave them access to some of the highest places in government.
I don't think the point is that personal narratives aren't being pushed. That is the bedrock of Olympics broadcasting. People want to know who they're rooting or, more cynically, who to root for. The point was that the personal narratives are geared more to the social justice Gentry Left this go around. I haven't a clue if that's true or not in any sort of peer-based review sense. Nor do I particularly care if it is -- the Gentry Left led by Kapture are exactly the type of chuckleheads that love these faux sports, so why not market to your audience? I mean, are you really going to tell me that kapture isn't going to lap up the background story on a transgender free spirit aboriginee shuffling some sled down a hill? That's gold, Jerry. Gold.
Yes, but that is the point.
Viewers happen to be eating that up. So, they keep at it. I don't have viewership demographics, but I doubt many southern states are interested in many winter sports.
Your argument is tough, because it probably would have ran counter to Owens in 36.
Or, it doesn't, and social justice/sticking it to the man is acceptable when it coincides with a national narrative. Only problem is, that doesn't happen all the time.
You read that thinking it was a rant? It is definitely long, but one tweet doesn't do much w/o context.
He didn't have to include memes or anything -- the signal for short-attention span -- click bait kind of people.
The facts aren't mutually exclusive, btw. You'd know that if you took the 10 minute read. If you view Twitter as virtual pizza bagel bites, you are only going to get virtual pizza bagel bites. You strike me as a 2x pie guy, so, indulge yourself will you.
And, still no, the "conspiracy" (placing people where they are known to be -- at known times. Promoting people at known promotion times, in relation to travel to specific known meetings) doesn't have Page as in the linchpin. Something you continually to push, erroneously (very similarly to ensuring an intel cable is first and foremost defined by which nation they hail from. Because we should be pursuing intel cables only domestically.... /s)
Again, I get it. If we are simply going to stand by what we believed to be true at time X in the face of new facts in time Y, then we'll just call it what it is: What is the word for that?
But, still: These men were chosen and elevated by Trump or Trump proxies.
Why? They aren't all trojan horses planted by previous admin. Trump endorsed these men and gave them access to some of the highest places in government.
There is no ideal answer it seems.
Carter Page, who apparently had credible evidence that he was engaging in espionage against the US as a foreign spy, a Title I FISA warrant was granted on him and renewed for a full year. After that time, he is walking around a free man with NO travel restrictions whatsoever.
My theory is still sounding a lot more sane than his haha. Much shorter to explain too.
Are they? It'll be quite interesting to see how the ratings do.
Or, it doesn't, and social justice/sticking it to the man is acceptable when it coincides with a national narrative. Only problem is, that doesn't happen all the time.
Or it happens to coincide with, you know, the best fucking athletes. Owens was sort of big fucking deal well before he got to Germany. In fact, there's a plaque at MICHIGAN honoring him for kicking ass. And, look, I suspect most of the narratives they choose to do are on the folks with the best chance of winning -- merit-based shit. However, I also suspect that their is an increasing number of narratives done on folks with fuckall chance of winning shit that will appeal to Kapture and his Gentry Left compadres.
Either way, I don't much care as I'll watch exactly zero minutes of them.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
Tweet
Comment