Seth Abramson--The infowars of the left

Belz... said:
Well, it seems you've made the same mistake as conspiracy theorists do: think that "conspiracy theorist" means every person who thinks any conspiracy exists.
Click to expand...

Ah well then you should be able to figure out the completely sensible and sane conspiracy that Abramson is alleging.

Once again here is his claim:

BREAKING: It turns out that Donald Trump was conspiring with an *active* FBI informant while he was secretly leveraging his presidential run in 2015 and 2016 to get a business deal with Russian nationals.
Click to expand...

Have at it!
 
Belz... said:
It's brainster who claims that Abramson's words refer to a conspiracy theory. Stop playing games.
Click to expand...

Quote: "BREAKING: It turns out that Donald Trump was conspiring with an *active* FBI informant while he was secretly leveraging his presidential run in 2015 and 2016 to get a business deal with Russian nationals."

Source: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/973234462980001792

Talk about playing games.....
 
The Big Dog said:
Quote: "BREAKING: It turns out that Donald Trump was conspiring with an *active* FBI informant while he was secretly leveraging his presidential run in 2015 and 2016 to get a business deal with Russian nationals."
Click to expand...

That's not a conspiracy theory, TBD. Having participated in the CT sections for as long as you have, you know this by now*. It's just convenient to you to call it a CT because you know your tried to oversell the OP and failed.

*: In fact, our resident CTers keep trying to call the skeptics "conspiracy theorists" by doing the exact same thing you're doing now, something you'd never let pass if someone else was doing it. But it serves your purposes, and truth isn't important to you so long as the argument serves your goals.
 
Last edited:
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is often a derogatory one." (Wikipedia)

Fits perfectly! :rolleyes:
 
Belz... said:
That's not a conspiracy theory, TBD. Having participated in the CT sections for as long as you have, you know this by now. It's just convenient to you to call it a CT because you know your tried to oversell the OP and failed.
Click to expand...

Really bought into that bridge Seth is selling huh?

A poet declares it is a conspiracy so it is a conspiracy!

Conspiracies are things that people I do not like do, conspiracy theories are when people I do like do stuff. Seth 4 Evar!

Great thread.
 
The Big Dog said:
Seth writes that "Do I need to point out how *hard* that's going to come back to bite him?"
Click to expand...

From an actual bona fide journalist in the real world:

In other court filings, the Justice Department said Felix Sater’s work on behalf of the United States “involves 18 foreign governments” as well as “various families of La Cosa Nostra,” and that his help was “of an extraordinary depth and breadth.”
Click to expand...

Not ever, not once, not even as a joke.

https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/973281953095888896
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
How about _you_ explain what's the conspiracy theory? It isn't my claim, it's yours.
Click to expand...

I don't have a clue what he's talking about. Another feature of conspiracy theories is that they try to bog you down in minutia.

The initial part is " It turns out that Donald Trump was conspiring with an *active* FBI informant...."

Conspiring to do what? We aren't told. Who is the *active* FBI informant? I am guessing it is this Sater person. Looked him up on Wikipedia, and it turns out that his working as an FBI informant was obviously well-known in 2015 (it was brought up in Loretta Lynch's confirmation hearing as AG that year). So I strongly doubt that Sater was an *active* FBI informant at that time, because the job requires that your connection to the feds not be known.

And typically for a conspiracy nutbar, Abramson then brings in another charge:

....while he was secretly leveraging his presidential run in 2015 and 2016 to get a business deal with Russian nationals."
Click to expand...

I see that Jason Leopold is also involved in this whole bit. Leopold doesn't have the greatest reputation for getting the facts right.

Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, self-admittedly “getting it completely wrong” in pieces for Dow Jones, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns over the accuracy of quotations.

Leopold’s latest addition to his application for membership in the Stephen Glass school of journalism came on May 12 of this year, when he got what appeared to be the scoop of a lifetime. Now writing for Truthout.org, Leopold reported that Karl Rove “told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials,” that he was about to be indicted in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case, “according to people knowledgeable about these discussions.”

Leopold claimed that multiple sources “confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation.”
Click to expand...

Of course, this "scoop" turned out to be false, as Rove was not indicted at all by the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald. But for about a month, anti-Rove people (basically all liberals) walked around with visions of sugar plum indictments dancing in their heads. They even came up with a word for the day when Leopold's scoop would be confirmed: Fitzmas.
 
Brainster said:
I don't have a clue what he's talking about. Another feature of conspiracy theories is that they try to bog you down in minutia.
Click to expand...

A key feature of CTs is that they are fractal, adding layers upon layers of conspiracy to hide the obvious flaws in the original claim. Other key features exist, and what you've provided has none of them.

As I said earlier, CTers keep equivocating between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" and we don't let them do that. Why should I let you?
 
Brainster said:
I don't have a clue what he's talking about. Another feature of conspiracy theories is that they try to bog you down in minutia.

The initial part is " It turns out that Donald Trump was conspiring with an *active* FBI informant...."

Conspiring to do what? We aren't told. Who is the *active* FBI informant? I am guessing it is this Sater person. Looked him up on Wikipedia, and it turns out that his working as an FBI informant was obviously well-known in 2015 (it was brought up in Loretta Lynch's confirmation hearing as AG that year). So I strongly doubt that Sater was an *active* FBI informant at that time, because the job requires that your connection to the feds not be known.

And typically for a conspiracy nutbar, Abramson then brings in another charge:



I see that Jason Leopold is also involved in this whole bit. Leopold doesn't have the greatest reputation for getting the facts right.



Of course, this "scoop" turned out to be false, as Rove was not indicted at all by the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald. But for about a month, anti-Rove people (basically all liberals) walked around with visions of sugar plum indictments dancing in their heads. They even came up with a word for the day when Leopold's scoop would be confirmed: Fitzmas.
Click to expand...

You know, you don't have to support TBD just because he's on your side. Time to cut your losses, dude.
 
I'm mostly ignoring this thread because, at best, it's going to be pointless petty bickering, and because I'm sure The Big Dog is finding having a place to vent cathartic. But someone did ask for evidence that Abramson has been correct in things he's predicted, either here or in another thread. So I'm going to post one thread of Abramson's from today, in which he links to an article which is reporting as new news, and then links to his own threads - going back to September 2017 - in which he had already connected many of the same dots.

I'll leave it up to any interested parties to read and assess for themselves: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/973377593205559296
 
Page 4 and I still don't know what the purported CT is.

While TBD's link to Abramson's rambling, incoherent article does provide evidence that Abramson writes rambling, incoherent articles, evidence that he's a CTist is still lacking.

So TBD, my challenge stands. Please quote Abramson's words that are evidence that he's a rampant CTist. Not another naked link. Not another cite to an opinion piece. Not another simple instance of being wrong about something. Not an emoji. Not an "oh dear".

Simply summarize the CT in your own words, and post quotes from Abramson demonstrating that he foists said CT. This need not be a wordy, difficult exercise. If you have the time to write dozens of evasive posts, surely you can find the time for this simple task. See the template I posted above.
 
varwoche said:
Page 4 and I still don't know what the purported CT is.

While TBD's link to Abramson's rambling, incoherent article does provide evidence that Abramson writes rambling, incoherent articles, evidence that he's a CTist is still lacking.

So TBD, my challenge stands. Please quote Abramson's words that are evidence that he's a rampant CTist. Not another naked link. Not another cite to an opinion piece. Not another simple instance of being wrong about something. Not an emoji. Not an "oh dear".

Simply summarize the CT in your own words, and post quotes from Abramson demonstrating that he foists said CT. This need not be a wordy, difficult exercise. If you have the time to write dozens of evasive posts, surely you can find the time for this simple task. See the template I posted above.
Click to expand...

Don't you SEE!?! Abramson used the word "Conspiracy." It's all right there. :jaw-dropp
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'm mostly ignoring this thread because, at best, it's going to be pointless petty bickering, and because I'm sure The Big Dog is finding having a place to vent cathartic. But someone did ask for evidence that Abramson has been correct in things he's predicted, either here or in another thread. So I'm going to post one thread of Abramson's from today, in which he links to an article which is reporting as new news, and then links to his own threads - going back to September 2017 - in which he had already connected many of the same dots.

I'll leave it up to any interested parties to read and assess for themselves: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/973377593205559296
Click to expand...

Great example! You just said that "Abramson has been correct in things he's predicted." In fact, all that he did was regurgitate the actual reporting done by Reuters and now is crowing about, what exactly, writing a tweet storm about an article that was released on a god damn wire service, polluted with awful hyperbole and speculation.

I am going to start all me posts with "Breaking" from now on so people will know I am a serious "journalist."

It amazes me how many people are getting flat out conned by this knucklehead.
 
varwoche said:
Page 4 and I still don't know what the purported CT is.

While TBD's link to Abramson's rambling, incoherent article does provide evidence that Abramson writes rambling, incoherent articles, evidence that he's a CTist is still lacking.

So TBD, my challenge stands. Please quote Abramson's words that are evidence that he's a rampant CTist. Not another naked link. Not another cite to an opinion piece. Not another simple instance of being wrong about something. Not an emoji. Not an "oh dear".

Simply summarize the CT in your own words, and post quotes from Abramson demonstrating that he foists said CT. This need not be a wordy, difficult exercise. If you have the time to write dozens of evasive posts, surely you can find the time for this simple task. See the template I posted above.
Click to expand...

There is nothing further I can do for you when I have explicitly stated what the conspiracy was (that Sanders was actually winning but corporate media was hiding it) (fourth time I have said those words?) and posted Seth's own "explanation" for why he promulgated that lie for so long.

Bummer how many people are so far down the rabbit hole that numerous links and articles and explanations to actual left wing sources can't even allow them to understand what is wrong with the guy.
 
The Big Dog said:
There is nothing further I can do for you when I have explicitly stated what the conspiracy was (that Sanders was actually winning but corporate media was hiding it) (fourth time I have said those words?) and posted Seth's own "explanation" for why he promulgated that lie for so long.

Bummer how many people are so far down the rabbit hole that numerous links and articles and explanations to actual left wing sources can't even allow them to understand what is wrong with the guy.
Click to expand...

So what he wrote two years ago disqualifies him from ever writing anything of relevance going forwards?
 
The Big Dog said:
There is nothing further I can do for you when I have explicitly stated what the conspiracy was (that Sanders was actually winning but corporate media was hiding it) (fourth time I have said those words?) and posted Seth's own "explanation" for why he promulgated that lie for so long.

Bummer how many people are so far down the rabbit hole that numerous links and articles and explanations to actual left wing sources can't even allow them to understand what is wrong with the guy.
Click to expand...
Why are you so resistant to the notion that people can have their own opinion and acknowledge the good points Abramson makes and reject the useless points he makes. Are you so far down the Repub rabbit hole that you consider that people need to be told what to think?
 
abaddon said:
Why are you so resistant to the notion that people can have their own opinion and acknowledge the good points Abramson makes and reject the useless points he makes. Are you so far down the Repub rabbit hole that you consider that people need to be told what to think?
Click to expand...

Oh man, literally the first line in the OP:

"Lately there has been a curious rise in the number of people relying on former attorney and poet Seth Abramson as a so-called expert on the Trump-Russia situation."

(I did enjoy the "i know you are but what am I" fourth grade flavor of the "Repub rabbit hole" tho, particularly when i have been repeatedly posting to left wing sources.... solid point otherwise tho)
 
The Big Dog said:
Oh man, literally the first line in the OP:

"Lately there has been a curious rise in the number of people relying on former attorney and poet Seth Abramson as a so-called expert on the Trump-Russia situation."

(I did enjoy the "i know you are but what am I" fourth grade flavor of the "Repub rabbit hole" tho, particularly when i have been repeatedly posting to left wing sources.... solid point otherwise tho)
Click to expand...

I have read a bit of his screeds but he doesn't mean much to me. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is flat out wrong. Meh.

Comparing him to the absolute nuttiness of Jones is a bit of a reach. Do you really want me to demonstrate how bonkers Jones is? Do you want me to link that insanity? Because I will, and if you wish to adhere to that insanity feel free.

The bottom line is that Abramson has opinions, some right some wrong, but Jones is flat out bonkers.
 
Maybe TBD meant that Abramson is the Jones of the left, and that it shows that the left is more sane than the right if this is the craziest he could find?

I mean, he is a Bernie bro...
 
The Great Zaganza said:
So what he wrote two years ago disqualifies him from ever writing anything of relevance going forwards?
Click to expand...

He wrote an article about having engaged in "experimental journalism" with the intent of creating a false "metanarrative", because he believed that such metanarratives have a longer life span than the actual narrative does, and because he believed it would have more influence on people than actual facts do.
 
Emily's Cat said:
He wrote an article about having engaged in "experimental journalism" with the intent of creating a false "metanarrative", because he believed that such metanarratives have a longer life span than the actual narrative does, and because he believed it would have more influence on people than actual facts do.
Click to expand...

Pretty weird that anyone on the right would have a problem with that.
 
abaddon said:
You seem to think that Alex Jones is the rational right. Really?
Click to expand...

cool non sequitor

Plenty on the left think that Seth Abramson is a the Alex Jones of the left, and i have seen nothing that causes me to disagree with that assessment.
 
abaddon said:
You seem to think that Alex Jones is the rational right. Really?
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense to me. Unless I'm really missing something (which is always possible) it seems to me that TBD considers Alex Jones untrustworthy as a source... and considers Seth Abramson comparably untrustworthy as a source. I don't know where the "rational" element of your post comes into play. Can you elaborate?
 
Emily's Cat said:
He wrote an article about having engaged in "experimental journalism" with the intent of creating a false "metanarrative", because he believed that such metanarratives have a longer life span than the actual narrative does, and because he believed it would have more influence on people than actual facts do.
Click to expand...
Where does he say this? I don't see it, although I could have overlooked because my mind glazes over when I read his meandering gibberish.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: That seems kind of like a nonsequitor? Are you intending to imply that I'm on the right? Or is that targeted at someone else and I'm just not picking up on it?
Click to expand...

It is just another "but the right" posing as political discussion. When they have nothing they simply attack the other side. It gets quite repetitive and boring.
 
Emily's Cat said:
This doesn't make sense to me. Unless I'm really missing something (which is always possible) it seems to me that TBD considers Alex Jones untrustworthy as a source... and considers Seth Abramson comparably untrustworthy as a source. I don't know where the "rational" element of your post comes into play. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Sure. Abraham's has opinions with which one may or may not agree and that is perfectly OK. Jones is frankly nutty. Anyone who agrees with Jones is also frankly insane. The guy is bonkers.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: That seems kind of like a nonsequitor? Are you intending to imply that I'm on the right? Or is that targeted at someone else and I'm just not picking up on it?
Click to expand...

I'm mocking the premise of this joke of a thread. Low-hanging fruit, really.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is just another "but the right" posing as political discussion. When they have nothing they simply attack the other side. It gets quite repetitive and boring.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what made you think I was posing anything as "political discussion". There's nothing you've brought up here that's worth even pretending to take seriously. I'm just making fun of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom