Agree Agree:  822
Likes Likes:  507
Page 142 of 168 FirstFirst ... 4292117132138139140141142143144145146152167 ... LastLast
Results 2,116 to 2,130 of 2511
  1. #2116

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Dane Young
    @DaneSocial

    My polling place line is wrapped around several neighborhoods. I was tempted to go home but if standing in a line is my only obstacle than standing is what I shall do!

    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  2. #2117
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,566

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Obama: "Joe Biden is tough. Something that you can't really say about this president. He likes to act tough and talk tough ... but when '60 Minutes' and Lesley Stahl are too tough for you, you ain't all that tough."

    Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk

  3. #2118

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Joyce Alene
    @JoyceWhiteVance
    Alabama, where early voting in the form of no-excuse in-person absentee voting is happening for the first time, had long lines despite pouring rain for 9-1 Saturday voting today. There were over 100 people in line in Bessemer who were able to stay & vote when they shut down at 1.

    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  4. #2119

    Re: The Run to the WH

    We don't know who they're voting for but the turnout seems to be huge.

    Evan Smith
    @evanasmith
    @texastribune’s early vote tracker has been updated: 7.2M Texans have voted so far — that's 42.4% of the state’s registered voters. We’re only ~1.7M away from *total* 2016 turnout, which was the most ever https://apps.texastribune.org/featur...oting-numbers/ #t2020 #txlege #txsen

    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  5. #2120
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    25,566

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    We don't know who they're voting for but the turnout seems to be huge.

    Evan Smith
    @evanasmith
    @texastribune’s early vote tracker has been updated: 7.2M Texans have voted so far — that's 42.4% of the state’s registered voters. We’re only ~1.7M away from *total* 2016 turnout, which was the most ever https://apps.texastribune.org/featur...oting-numbers/ #t2020 #txlege #txsen

    It's encouraging

    Sent from my SM-J737P using Tapatalk

  6. #2121

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Meanwhile in Philly...

    Lindy Li
    @lindyli

    Omg I love my city so much
    Dancing while waiting at the polls!
    Philly, let’s turn Pennsylvania blue. We can literally SAVE OUR COUNTRY Flag of United States

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1320409597291749376
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  7. #2122

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Not to be outdone...

    Voto Latino
    @votolatino
    Nevada Latinos coming through in style, y’all!

    VOTE VOTE VOTE!

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1320401436912607235
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  8. #2123

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.
    Inside the White House’s secret, last-ditch effort to change the narrative, and the election — and the return of the media gatekeepers.

    By Ben Smith
    Oct. 25, 2020
    Updated 7:38 p.m. ET



    By early October, even people inside the White House believed President Trump’s re-election campaign needed a desperate rescue mission. So three men allied with the president gathered at a house in McLean, Va., to launch one.

    The host was Arthur Schwartz, a New York public relations man close to President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr. The guests were a White House lawyer, Eric Herschmann, and a former deputy White House counsel, Stefan Passantino, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

    Mr. Herschmann knew the subject matter they were there to discuss. He had represented Mr. Trump during the impeachment trial early this year, and he tried to deflect allegations against the president in part by pointing to Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine. More recently, he has been working on the White House payroll with a hazy portfolio, listed as “a senior adviser to the president,” and remains close to Jared Kushner.

    The three had pinned their hopes for re-electing the president on a fourth guest, a straight-shooting Wall Street Journal White House reporter named Michael Bender. They delivered the goods to him there: a cache of emails detailing Hunter Biden’s business activities, and, on speaker phone, a former business partner of Hunter Biden’s named Tony Bobulinski. Mr. Bobulinski was willing to go on the record in The Journal with an explosive claim: that Joe Biden, the former vice president, had been aware of, and profited from, his son’s activities. The Trump team left believing that The Journal would blow the thing open and their excitement was conveyed to the president.

    The Journal had seemed to be the perfect outlet for a story the Trump advisers believed could sink Mr. Biden’s candidacy. Its small-c conservatism in reporting means the work of its news pages carries credibility across the industry. And its readership leans further right than other big news outlets. Its Washington bureau chief, Paul Beckett, recently remarked at a virtual gathering of Journal reporters and editors that while he knows that the paper often delivers unwelcome news to the many Trump supporters who read it, The Journal should protect its unique position of being trusted across the political spectrum, two people familiar with the remarks said.

    As the Trump team waited with excited anticipation for a Journal exposé, the newspaper did its due diligence: Mr. Bender and Mr. Beckett handed the story off to a well-regarded China correspondent, James Areddy, and a Capitol Hill reporter who had followed the Hunter Biden story, Andrew Duehren. Mr. Areddy interviewed Mr. Bobulinski. They began drafting an article.

    Then things got messy. Without warning his notional allies, Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and now a lawyer for President Trump, burst onto the scene with the tabloid version of the McLean crew’s carefully laid plot. Mr. Giuliani delivered a cache of documents of questionable provenance — but containing some of the same emails — to The New York Post, a sister publication to The Journal in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Mr. Giuliani had been working with the former Trump aide Steve Bannon, who also began leaking some of the emails to favored right-wing outlets. Mr. Giuliani’s complicated claim that the emails came from a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned, and his refusal to let some reporters examine the laptop, cast a pall over the story — as did The Post’s reporting, which alleged but could not prove that Joe Biden had been involved in his son’s activities.

    While the Trump team was clearly jumpy, editors in The Journal’s Washington bureau were wrestling with a central question: Could the documents, or Mr. Bobulinski, prove that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s lobbying? Or was this yet another story of the younger Mr. Biden trading on his family’s name — a perfectly good theme, but not a new one or one that needed urgently to be revealed before the election.

    Mr. Trump and his allies expected the Journal story to appear Monday, Oct. 19, according to Mr. Bannon. That would be late in the campaign, but not too late — and could shape that week’s news cycle heading into the crucial final debate last Thursday. An “important piece” in The Journal would be coming soon, Mr. Trump told aides on a conference call that day.

    His comment was not appreciated inside The Journal.

    “The editors didn’t like Trump’s insinuation that we were being teed up to do this hit job,” a Journal reporter who wasn’t directly involved in the story told me. But the reporters continued to work on the draft as the Thursday debate approached, indifferent to the White House’s frantic timeline.

    Finally, Mr. Bobulinski got tired of waiting.

    “He got spooked about whether they were going to do it or not,” Mr. Bannon said.

    At 7:35 Wednesday evening, Mr. Bobulinski emailed an on-the-record, 684-word statement making his case to a range of news outlets. Breitbart News published it in full. He appeared the next day in Nashville to attend the debate as Mr. Trump’s surprise guest, and less than two hours before the debate was to begin, he read a six-minute statement to the press, detailing his allegations that the former vice president had involvement in his son’s business dealings.

    When Mr. Trump stepped on stage, the president acted as though the details of the emails and the allegations were common knowledge. “You’re the big man, I think. I don’t know, maybe you’re not,” he told Mr. Biden at some point, a reference to an ambiguous sentence from the documents.

    As the debate ended, The Wall Street Journal published a brief item, just the stub of Mr. Areddy and Mr. Duehren’s reporting. The core of it was that Mr. Bobulinski had failed to prove the central claim. “Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden,” The Journal reported.


    Asked about The Journal’s handling of the story, the editor in chief, Matt Murray, said the paper did not discuss its newsgathering. “Our rigorous and trusted journalism speaks for itself,” Mr. Murray said in an emailed statement.

    And if you’d been watching the debate, but hadn’t been obsessively watching Fox News or reading Breitbart, you would have had no idea what Mr. Trump was talking about. The story the Trump team hoped would upend the campaign was fading fast.

    The gatekeepers return

    The McLean group's failed attempt to sway the election is partly just another story revealing the chaotic, threadbare quality of the Trump operation — a far cry from the coordinated “disinformation” machinery feared by liberals.

    But it’s also about a larger shift in the American media, one in which the gatekeepers appear to have returned after a long absence.

    It has been a disorienting couple of decades, after all. It all began when The Drudge Report, Gawker and the blogs started telling you what stodgy old newspapers and television networks wouldn’t. Then social media brought floods of content pouring over the old barricades.

    By 2015, the old gatekeepers had entered a kind of crisis of confidence, believing they couldn’t control the online news cycle any better than King Canute could control the tides. Television networks all but let Donald Trump take over as executive producer that summer and fall. In October 2016, Julian Assange and James Comey seemed to drive the news cycle more than the major news organizations. Many figures in old media and new bought into the idea that in the new world, readers would find the information they wanted to read — and therefore, decisions by editors and producers, about whether to cover something and how much attention to give it, didn’t mean much.

    But the last two weeks have proved the opposite: that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda. It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, a difference between a Trump tweet and an article about it, even between an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggesting Joe Biden had done bad things, and a news article that didn’t reach that conclusion.

    Perhaps the most influential media document of the last four years is a chart by a co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, Yochai Benkler. The study showed that a dense new right-wing media sphere had emerged — and that the mainstream news “revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set.”

    Mr. Bannon had known this, too. He described his strategy as “anchor left, pivot right,” and even as he ran Breitbart News, he worked to place attacks on Hillary Clinton in mainstream outlets. The validating power of those outlets was clear when The New York Times and Washington Post were given early access in the spring of 2015 to the book “Clinton Cash,” an investigation of the Clinton family’s blurring of business, philanthropic and political interests by the writer Peter Schweizer.

    Mr. Schweizer is still around this cycle. But you won’t find his work in mainstream outlets. He’s over on Breitbart, with a couple of Hunter Biden stories this month.

    And the fact that Mr. Bobulinski emerged not in the pages of the widely respected Journal but in a statement to Breitbart was essentially Mr. Bannon’s nightmare, and Mr. Benkler’s fondest wish. And a broad array of mainstream outlets, unpersuaded that Hunter Biden’s doings tie directly to the former vice president, have largely kept the story off their front pages, and confined to skeptical explanations of what Mr. Trump and his allies are claiming about his opponent.

    “SO USA TODAY DIDN’T WANT TO RUN MY HUNTER BIDEN COLUMN THIS WEEK,” the conservative writer Glenn Reynolds complained Oct. 20, posting the article instead to his blog. President Trump himself hit a wall when he tried to push the Hunter Biden narrative onto CBS News.

    “This is ‘60 Minutes,’ and we can’t put on things we can’t verify,” Lesley Stahl told him. Mr. Trump then did more or less the same thing as Mr. Reynolds, posting a video of his side of the interview to his own blog, Facebook.


    The media’s control over information, of course, is not as total as it used to be. The people who own printing presses and broadcast towers can’t actually stop you from reading leaked emails or unproven theories about Joe Biden’s knowledge of his son’s business. But what Mr. Benkler’s research showed was that the elite outlets’ ability to set the agenda endured in spite of social media.

    We should have known it, of course. Many of our readers, screaming about headlines on Twitter, did. And Mr. Trump knew it all along — one way to read his endless attacks on the establishment media is as an expression of obsession, a form of love. This week, you can hear howls of betrayal from people who have for years said the legacy media was both utterly biased and totally irrelevant.

    “For years, we’ve respected and even revered the sanctified position of the free press,” wrote Dana Loesch, a right-wing commentator not particularly known for her reverence of legacy media, expressing frustration that the Biden story was not getting attention. “Now that free press points its digital pen at your throat when you question their preferences.”

    On the other side of the gate

    There’s something amusing — even a bit flattering — in such earnest protestations from a right-wing movement rooted in efforts to discredit the independent media. And this reassertion of control over information is what you’ve seen many journalists call for in recent years. At its best, it can also close the political landscape to a trendy new form of dirty tricks, as in France in 2017, where the media largely ignored a last-minute dump of hacked emails from President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign just before a legally mandated blackout period.

    But I admit that I feel deep ambivalence about this revenge of the gatekeepers. I spent my career, before arriving at The Times in March, on the other side of the gate, lobbing information past it to a very online audience who I presumed had already seen the leak or the rumor, and seeing my job as helping to guide that audience through the thicket, not to close their eyes to it. “The media’s new and unfamiliar job is to provide a framework for understanding the wild, unvetted, and incredibly intoxicating information that its audience will inevitably see — not to ignore it,” my colleague John Herrman (also now at The Times) and I wrote in 2013. In 2017, I made the decision to publish the unverified “Steele dossier,” in part on the grounds that gatekeepers were looking at it and influenced by it, but keeping it from their audience.

    This fall, top media and tech executives were bracing to refight the last war — a foreign-backed hack-and-leak operation like WikiLeaks seeking to influence the election’s outcome. It was that hyper-vigilance that led Twitter to block links to The New York Post’s article about Hunter Biden — a frighteningly disproportionate response to a story that other news organizations were handling with care. The schemes of Mr. Herschmann, Mr. Passantino and Mr. Schwartz weren’t exactly WikiLeaks. But the special nervousness that many outlets, including this one, feel about the provenance of the Hunter Biden emails is, in many ways, the legacy of the WikiLeaks experience.

    I’d prefer to put my faith in Mr. Murray and careful, professional journalists like him than in the social platforms’ product managers and executives. And I hope Americans relieved that the gatekeepers are reasserting themselves will also pay attention to who gets that power, and how centralized it is, and root for new voices to correct and challenge them.



    Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. Before that, he covered politics for Politico, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer and The New York Sun. Email: ben.smith@nytimes.com @benyt

    A version of this article appears in print on Oct. 26, 2020 of the New York edition with the headline: Inside Trump Allies’ Plan to Alter Race.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/b...?smid=tw-share
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  9. #2124

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Here is an interesting NYT article about Americans who don't vote (typically 35-40%): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/u...gtype=Homepage

    Few selected excerpts...


    Voting is fundamentally an act of hope. But since the 1960s, between a third and a half of eligible voters have stayed home during presidential elections, one of the lowest rates among America’s developed peers. Since the early 1900s, the high point for presidential turnout was in 1960, when 63.8 percent of eligible adults voted, according to the United States Elections Project that tracks voting data back to 1789. Most recently, the highest peak was in 2008, when 61.6 percent turned out.

    ----

    “I never thought I’d be bothered with this crap, but now it really counts,” said Jack Breglia, 49, a retired tow truck driver in Kunkletown, Pa. He could not remember the last time he voted but said he planned to vote for Mr. Trump this time.

    But many others said they would not. They expressed a profound distrust of politics and doubted their vote would have an effect. They felt a sense of foreboding about the country and saw politics as one of the main forces doing the threatening. Many were not particularly partisan, and said they shrank from people who were.

    ----

    “Politics? It’s the least of my worries,” she said.

    She said she would vote again “if the right person came in.”

    But Mr. Biden is not that person, she said. Ms. Miller said she had not watched any of the debates or kept up with the candidates.

    “I’m just trying to make it through,” she said.

    ----

    Jennifer Martin, 46, a single mother waiting in line in her car at the Pleasant Valley Ecumenical Network food pantry in Sciota, Pa., said last time she voted she was in her 20s. Politics, she said, has little relevance to her life. The two political parties seemed about the same.

    A recent study found that people like Ms. Martin who do not follow politics closely have different concerns from those who do. For example, they say that low hourly wages are among the most important problems facing the country. For hard partisans, who are more likely to vote, the issue barely registers.

    “I work at a day care where they pay their workers nothing,” she said. “That’s why I have to come to places like this to feed my family.”

    Might the election change things?

    “I’m not interested in it,” she said.

    ---

    Just 47 percent of African-Americans under 30 voted in 2016, compared with nearly 70 percent of those over 65, a pattern of youth disenchantment common to Americans of all races and ethnicities.

    Many interviewed in Monroe County said they felt their vote did not matter, pointing to the contested 2000 presidential election and to Mr. Trump losing the popular vote. Some said they thought powerful insiders were the ones who really decided.

    “We love you and we wish you good luck,” said Fannie Sanchez, 44, a New York-born daughter of Colombian immigrants, of voters. People who do not vote “already saw that there’s something being maneuvered back there. We just unplug ourselves.”

    Ms. Sanchez is part of a demographic that also had low turnout in 2016: American-born Hispanics. She said in 2008 she swallowed her cynicism and cast the first vote in her life, for Mr. Obama.

    “I had to just close my eyes and say, ‘If this is fake, I don’t care. I want to be part of this.’”

    But she did not vote for him again. Politicians are noisy, but ultimately of no use.

    “They rent space in my brain and they frustrate me, but in the end, they do what they want anyway,” she said.

    ----

    Others see a reason to vote this time. Latoya Garrison, a single mother who works nights at a factory putting safety seals on cosmetics, did not vote in 2016. But the coronavirus changed her mind this time. Her tips waitressing at the Roasted Tomato dwindled to $30 a day, and this fall, a social services agency helped her pay rent.

    “I’m looking for who is more into controlling this virus, so we can go back to normal,” she said. “I don’t care about anything else.”

    The week before last, she voted by mail for Mr. Biden.
    Roger forever

  10. #2125

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Jennifer Martin, 46, a single mother waiting in line in her car at the Pleasant Valley Ecumenical Network food pantry in Sciota, Pa., said last time she voted she was in her 20s. Politics, she said, has little relevance to her life. The two political parties seemed about the same.

    A recent study found that people like Ms. Martin who do not follow politics closely have different concerns from those who do. For example, they say that low hourly wages are among the most important problems facing the country. For hard partisans, who are more likely to vote, the issue barely registers.

    “I work at a day care where they pay their workers nothing,” she said. “That’s why I have to come to places like this to feed my family.”

    Might the election change things?

    “I’m not interested in it,” she said.
    And not voting helps raise wages? The stupidity of some people. To be totally non PC I'd be willing to bet she's working somewhere off the books.

    When I first read the article I thought the city mentioned was Knucklehead, PA.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  11. #2126

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Josh Eidelson
    @josheidelson
    "Texans who are suddenly unable to go to the polls because they contract the coronavirus shortly before Election Day will need a certified doctor’s note to vote absentee, a state appeals court ruled."
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...te-coronavirus
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  12. #2127

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Yep, voting does not matter at all.
    I mean, I left my country because some minority of people voted a lunatic into the presidency and now the country lies in ruins, but other than that, voting means nothing at all. Not. One. Bit.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  13. #2128

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Dry how did you like the "Amish" that showed up at this rally?
    It was "nuns" last week and an "Amish" woman in jeans and carrying a knock off Chanel bag before the nuns. One of the "Amish" men in this pic had ear buds in...



    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  14. #2129
    Director of Nothing
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    mmmm8's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York, New York, United States
    Posts
    52,095

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Maybe they're earplugs so that he doesn't have to hear Trump speak.


  15. #2130

    Re: The Run to the WH

    Here's the woman in typical "Amish" woman attire

    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




Page 142 of 168 FirstFirst ... 4292117132138139140141142143144145146152167 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •