Michael Moore exposes green energy as a fraud

[Knuckle Ball]

The Hill: Rising
Kyle Kulinski
David Dole(Canadian)

Start there. Not extreme in the least. They just see both political parties for what they are.

Also look up Ryan Grim from the Intercept.

And Matt Tahibi independent Journalist (just left Rolling Stone)

That will start you on the path to seeing some truth.

I refuse to watch Krystal Ball’s show as a matter of principle. I’ll have a look at the other ones though.

 

[Butler1000]

I refuse to watch Krystal Ball’s show as a matter of principle. I’ll have a look at the other ones though.

You will love Kyle. Over 800,000 subs now and still growing.

 

[Frankfooter]

The Hill: Rising
Kyle Kulinski
David Dole(Canadian)

Start there. Not extreme in the least. They just see both political parties for what they are.

Also look up Ryan Grim from the Intercept.

And Matt Tahibi independent Journalist (just left Rolling Stone)

That will start you on the path to seeing some truth.

I read the Hill, Rolling Stone and the Intercept, but won't stick to just one view from those places.

 

[Gooseifur]

Zero Hedge?

Russian Television?

The Buffalo News?

Or...of course...The Chapo Trap House podcast!

Coming from a guy who gets his news of twitter yokels.

 

[onthebottom]

Zero Hedge?

Russian Television?

The Buffalo News?

Or...of course...The Chapo Trap House podcast!

These look like danmand sources

 

[Butler1000]

I read the Hill, Rolling Stone and the Intercept, but won't stick to just one view from those places.

I also have feeds from BBC, CBC, Reuters.

And a CNN app for the laughs.

 

[Gooseifur]

Talk for yourself. My knowledge of Chemical Engineering does not come from Youtube.

Neither does mine it actually has nothing to do with chemical engineering. It's about sustainability. Trees grow very slowly. They can't grow them at nearly the rate that they are burning them at ,plus it's more toxic than coal or fossil fuels.

 

[Valcazar]

When the polls come out the headlines only show the national numbers. You have to go to the linked polls and look at the guts of it. They will give breakdowns in various demographics.

I encourage you to visit The Hill website. Especially the YouTube channel The Hill: Rising. They have great insight and polling data. Then go look at them yourself to confirm.

Obviously you have to look at the crosstabs for info like that.
So the answer is you don't know where the data comes from? Does the hill: rising list the polls they are using so they can be checked? I don't need their opinion or spin, I would like to know what polls they are using so I can go look at the numbers.

 

[Valcazar]

The Hill: Rising
Kyle Kulinski
David Dole(Canadian)

Start there. Not extreme in the least. They just see both political parties for what they are.

Also look up Ryan Grim from the Intercept.

And Matt Tahibi independent Journalist (just left Rolling Stone)

That will start you on the path to seeing some truth.

Holy shit, this explains a lot. You really need to start reading some more diverse sources.

EDIT: At least you are reading some other things due to your later post. But still.

 

[Frankfooter]

Obviously you have to look at the crosstabs for info like that.
So the answer is you don't know where the data comes from? Does the hill: rising list the polls they are using so they can be checked? I don't need their opinion or spin, I would like to know what polls they are using so I can go look at the numbers.

538 still does the best breakdown of polls I've seen.
Gives sources and links.

The only real question is how they weight them together to come up with their total numbers.
Haven't seen anything more useful or trustworthy.

 

[Valcazar]

538 still does the best breakdown of polls I've seen.
Gives sources and links.

The only real question is how they weight them together to come up with their total numbers.
Haven't seen anything more useful or trustworthy.

Silver has always been coy about his "secret sauce" for weighting polls, which is annoying.

But while I don't know about Butler's specific numbers, the general statement that Biden v Trump in April doesn't show as good numbers as Clinton v Trump in April 2016 can be checked.

Biden v Trump April rolling average:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#!

RCP April average: Biden +5.9

Clinton v Trump April rolling average:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...ral_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls
(You have to scroll down - I thought we could upload pictures as well as link, but I guess not. )

Trump +2
Clinton +7
Tie
Clinton +11
Clinton +3
Clinton +7
Clinton +11
Clinton +10

Doing the math:
RCP April average: Clinton +5.9
(round up from 5.875)

So at least from RCP Biden is doing the same at this point. Can't get minority support from those topline numbers, though.

 

[Butler1000]

Obviously you have to look at the crosstabs for info like that.
So the answer is you don't know where the data comes from? Does the hill: rising list the polls they are using so they can be checked? I don't need their opinion or spin, I would like to know what polls they are using so I can go look at the numbers.

Yes they do. Every time. And they use all the recognized polls.

 

[Butler1000]

Holy shit, this explains a lot. You really need to start reading some more diverse sources.

EDIT: At least you are reading some other things due to your later post. But still.

I will add I read the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail.

The problem is many of the journalists working in the USA today are either angling for TV spots, trying to hold on to them, or being directly paid by "Think tanks" and other groups that are supported by dark money.

It really is that bad. Weinstein was covered up. And so was Epstein. Notably by ABC who did it due to the Andrew connection. And they didn't want to lose the Kate and William marriage interviews.

Since the "no profit" model for news divisions was abandoned they are now less trustworthy. Because they can't piss off advertisers. So they can't properly Investigate and publish.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes they do. Every time. And they use all the recognized polls.

I went to their site. Can't find a damn thing.
I will assume you are correct and they specify which poll they are using in the broadcast itself, but without knowing which broadcast this was from I am not going to randomly watch a dozen videos trying to find it.

Next time they report one and you want to cite it, just say what day it is and I'll go look.

To be honest, I am genuinely surprised that when I checked RCP for the national numbers Biden is doing as well as Clinton was at this time. I really thought he would be further down.

 

[Valcazar]

I will add I read the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail.

The problem is many of the journalists working in the USA today are either angling for TV spots, trying to hold on to them, or being directly paid by "Think tanks" and other groups that are supported by dark money.

It really is that bad. Weinstein was covered up. And so was Epstein. Notably by ABC who did it due to the Andrew connection. And they didn't want to lose the Kate and William marriage interviews.

Since the "no profit" model for news divisions was abandoned they are now less trustworthy. Because they can't piss off advertisers. So they can't properly Investigate and publish.

I agree about the problems with the news media. It's a mess. But that first source list you posted really isn't one that is free of any of those incentives and worse are pretty much just a group heavily feeding into your ideological priors.

 

[Butler1000]

I agree about the problems with the news media. It's a mess. But that first source list you posted really isn't one that is free of any of those incentives and worse are pretty much just a group heavily feeding into your ideological priors.

The sources I mentioned are all pretty much independent media. They are not owned by one of the five media conglomerates.

As to bias they announce it. You know up front they are editorial. But they do back up their opinions with facts.

If you actually watch their coverage they happily don't pick sides when it comes to the political parties. They trash both.

 

[Frankfooter]

The sources I mentioned are all pretty much independent media.

That just means you don't know who is funding them.

 

[Butler1000]

That just means you don't know who is funding them.

Ok. Tell me. ..


Who is funding Kyle Kulinski.

 

[Frankfooter]

Ok. Tell me. ..


Who is funding Kyle Kulinski.

Did you check who funds the Justice Dems PAC?

 

[Butler1000]

Did you check who funds the Justice Dems PAC?

You didn't answer the question. And while he founded Justice Dems he is no longer with them.

So again. Who do you think funds Kyle Kulinski?