|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 02 2016 03:01 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 02:21 zlefin wrote:
that doesn't hurt mainstream media credibility; you don't need to replicate obvious trash to prove its obvious trash, you can point out that it's TRASH, and provide the reasons therefore for who have anosmia. and O'keefe is trash, quite rank at that.
MSM loses credibility because a bunch of scumbags decide to sell "those guys are lying!" to idiots to make money. If it is such trash, there should be no fear in debunking it. Why does the NYT not sent a reporter to a polling station to vote for his/her boss, or even the local congressman? What's the downside? These things are easier to do and report on than a crop circle, and would drive 10x the traffic regardless of your "proving" him right or wrong.
because its largely a waste of time and resources. maybe they can get an intern to do it, but that still wouldnt be worth it.
|
National Democrats produced evidence Monday that they claim shows the Republican National Committee is lying about not deploying poll watchers to early voting sites in Nevada.
The new evidence was filed in an ongoing legal case against the RNC that concerns allegations that the RNC has violated a federal consent decree dating back to the 1980s that limits its participation in so-called "ballot security" activities at election sites. Democrats are seeking to have the restrictions on the RNC's Election Day activities extended for another eight years.
A letter filed by Angelo Genova, a lawyer representing the Democratic National Committee in the case, said that the Democrats had evidence that the RNC "has and continues to engage in one or more ballot security initiatives utilizing poll watchers in Nevada," which he described as "contrary to the sworn declarations submitted earlier today, and the clear statements of its counsel."
The evidence filed by the Democrats Monday includes affidavits from three different Democratic poll observers who said they met fellow observers claiming to have been sent by the RNC to monitor early voting sites in Nevada. One affidavit includes a screen shot of a text message the alleged GOP poll observer sent the Democratic observer.
The screenshot comes from the affidavit of Ellyn Lindsay, a former assistant U.S. attorney in California who was observing a poll site for the Democrats in Las Vegas. In the affidavit, she said she met a woman named Kishanna Holland while they were both observing the early voting site at Arroyo Market Square on Saturday and Monday. Holland told Lindsay she was in Nevada on behalf of the RNC, according to the affidavit, but had also been told by the committee that she did not have to tell people she was working for Republicans.
Another affidavit, given by a California attorney named Michael Lieberman, also recounts meeting a Kishanna Holland while they were both observing the Arroyo Market Square polling place. Holland first introduced herself as an independent observer, but as their conversations throughout the day revealed her conservative leanings, Holland admitted to working for the RNC, according to the affidavit, and told Lieberman that an RNC memo had instructed her to lie about her affiliation.
Source
|
On November 02 2016 03:01 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 02:21 zlefin wrote:
that doesn't hurt mainstream media credibility; you don't need to replicate obvious trash to prove its obvious trash, you can point out that it's TRASH, and provide the reasons therefore for who have anosmia. and O'keefe is trash, quite rank at that.
MSM loses credibility because a bunch of scumbags decide to sell "those guys are lying!" to idiots to make money. If it is such trash, there should be no fear in debunking it. Why does the NYT not sent a reporter to a polling station to vote for his/her boss, or even the local congressman? What's the downside? These things are easier to do and report on than a crop circle, and would drive 10x the traffic regardless of your "proving" him right or wrong.
i'm not sure which video you're talking about now. and there isn't fear of debunking it, people have debunked it all the time in this thread and elsewhere.
I get the feeling you're making a reference to something i'm not familiar with; as I haven't seen all the o'keefe videos, nor do I care to.
what makes you an expert on what drives traffic at the scale required for a major news organization? I rather suspect the execs there now, much as I may dislike them, probably know a lot better than you about what will bring in viewers.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why all this effort to commit voter fraud when you can just type in some numbers in the rigged machines anyway
|
Humans won't believe a news outlet is objective until it confirms their preconceived conclusions. It's why so many people here get upset by Hillary supporters on this thread asking for evidence of the accusations and all they can come up with are media references that breaks apart under almost any scrutiny.
Trump looks like he's being attacked by the media right now because he has no self control and an inability to manage fires. Hilary upon winning the primary disappeared for months for a good reason--when you're ahead you simply have to not fuck up. This self control creates the illusion of the media suddenly "turning" on trump when the media is only biased towards one demographic--themselves.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Hah, the FBI just dumped a bunch of documents from its corruption investigation into Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the Marc Rich pardon.
|
|
|
Whats up with Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren deleting everything about Clinton from their social media accounts?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, the FBI just dumped a bunch of documents from its corruption investigation into Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the Marc Rich pardon.
nothing new there. procedures not followed. donations made. basically what the old public testimonies said.
|
On November 02 2016 03:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:01 cLutZ wrote:On November 02 2016 02:21 zlefin wrote:
that doesn't hurt mainstream media credibility; you don't need to replicate obvious trash to prove its obvious trash, you can point out that it's TRASH, and provide the reasons therefore for who have anosmia. and O'keefe is trash, quite rank at that.
MSM loses credibility because a bunch of scumbags decide to sell "those guys are lying!" to idiots to make money. If it is such trash, there should be no fear in debunking it. Why does the NYT not sent a reporter to a polling station to vote for his/her boss, or even the local congressman? What's the downside? These things are easier to do and report on than a crop circle, and would drive 10x the traffic regardless of your "proving" him right or wrong. i'm not sure which video you're talking about now. and there isn't fear of debunking it, people have debunked it all the time in this thread and elsewhere. I get the feeling you're making a reference to something i'm not familiar with; as I haven't seen all the o'keefe videos, nor do I care to. what makes you an expert on what drives traffic at the scale required for a major news organization? I rather suspect the execs there now, much as I may dislike them, probably know a lot better than you about what will bring in viewers.
The one where he goes into a polling station and gets a ballot of some random. Its one of the ones that got him into his legal issues.
Of course, the new ones are hardly debunked. It resulted in a firing and a resignation, in addition to journalists observing (randomly of course) how much less confrontational Trump rallies are.
The same can be said of that other video company that did the planned parenthood expose (I don't think it was the same people). If you don't think that its good that people go to right wing sites to get information on possible sale of fetus parts, maybe you should do your own sting operations.
These are not examples of things the NYT, WaPo, etc must do to avoid the polarized media oneofthem was talking about, it is instead examples of things that people care about, and never see reported on in those outlets. So, then they go to the side-outlets that actually report on things they find important. The selection of stories, IMO, more than the actual bias within them is what causes the polarization much more.
|
The problem is when the only way to generate this "important" information is heavily edited sting operations where you ask over and over the best way to vote illegally or how much baby parts cost, real journalism will not turn up anything. So no one will click on it, and no one will think it's reporting on something they find important.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2016 03:39 zeo wrote:
Whats up with Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren deleting everything about Clinton from their social media accounts?
dunno. ask them about it at campaign rallies?
|
On November 02 2016 03:40 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:
Hah, the FBI just dumped a bunch of documents from its corruption investigation into Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the Marc Rich pardon. nothing new there. procedures not followed. donations made. basically what the old public testimonies said.
Yeah, I cruised through the file (not that much was in there given how heavily redacted it all was). Nothing too important. I just find it amusing that they're dumping it right now.
|
On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote:
Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses. Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough. For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that. Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide? (purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question) No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though.
This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!"
I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros".
If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
|
On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:08 zlefin wrote:
Why no escape clauses? that seems dumb, since in reality there are in fact escape clauses. Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough. For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that. Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide? (purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question) No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave.
let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted:
you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right?
and yes we know how much you want to be able to say i told you so on november 9th, god forbid even if it means progressiveness gets set back a few decades.
|
On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Because the entire purpose is to see what it would take for said Hillary supporters to be so turned off from her that they would vote for Trump. Like, how bad does it have to be for them to actually tick off Trump in the ballot booth because Hillary was bad enough. For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that. Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide? (purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question) No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right?
Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her.
and yes we know how much you want to be able to say i told you so on november 9th, god forbid even if it means progressiveness gets set back a few decades.
I disagree. I do like I told you so's, but that's neither here nor there. I don't think Clinton making superficial progress and then changing subjects is the type of progress we're after. Trump gives people a villain to rally against, had Democrats not put up someone equally viewed as a villain/bad by America they would have this in the bag ez. So what we're likely going to have is some severe whiplash, and I'd rather it be the disenfranchised progressives be the ones up in arms rather than the Trumpkins inspired by ongoing investigations, potential criminal charges (if she could be charged as president), and more exposing, combined with the optics of working with countries that previously donated millions or corporations that have paid her and her husband millions.
The supreme court is really the only angle that I think makes sense. Even there though we're settling for moderate judges instead of the wackos Trump would put in.
When Democrats supported Hillary they conceded the opportunity for significant positive change in exchange for what they view as a more realistic shot at minor changes. That's not good enough for progressives and they knew that when they made that decision.
|
On November 02 2016 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 02 2016 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:23 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 00:19 LegalLord wrote:On November 02 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
For me the question reads "what would it take for you to support the rise of fascism?" so you can see how it's a tricky one to really answer. As I said, certainly not murder or anything like that. Would you vote for Trump in my scenario if it turned out she was extensively - and directly - involved in perpetuating the Rwandan Genocide? (purely hypothetical, there's no follow up "bombshell" I'm intending to link for this question) No, but I would support her indictment and trial for war crimes following Kaine taking office. Alright, then let's up the stakes a little bit. Say that tomorrow, Congress passes a law - and Obama signs - which holds that anyone elected president is immune from prosecution for all crimes committed before taking office, starting from when said candidate becomes president-elect until their last day in office. Would you vote for Trump then? No. And furthermore if she said she was going to use her four years exclusively to roam the country and hunt people for sport while using that new sovereign immunity from prosecution I'd still vote for her over Trump. Well, if you'd vote for genocidal sovereign immunity Clinton over as-is Trump, then I guess your support for her is about as rock-solid as it gets. There's only so much damage she can do in the next four years. I'd go back to Europe though. This is just such a different tone coming out of Hillary supporters than it was in the primary. "So what if maybe she murdered a couple thousand people, ran a pedo ring, and took bribes, we HAVE to stop Trump!" I also love how it went from "We don't need those stupid BernieBros anyway" to "well if she loses it's because sexism and stupid BernieBros". If Hillary loses she and her supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Her supporters made a big stink about Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th ave, meanwhile Hillary supporters would vote for her even if she dropped a bomb on 5th ave. let me help you out since you seem to have a little trouble following the series of posts you quoted: you do realize this was after a long drawn out hypothetical about if hitlery/ killary was a real thing, right? Yes I know. I wasn't implying they were facts, just that if they were, most of her supporters would still be voting for her.
briefly humoring the hypothetical, one of the cool features of american democracy is a thing called checks and balances.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the alternative to hillary is probably a bloomberg run. it would be a fascinating election.
|
clutz -> ok, I haven't seen that video. at any rate, my points stand about him being trash, and his stuff not worth looking at; and the critiques I made previously and tenth said well.
the planned parenthood video, was also trash, and reprehensible, too bad the makers of it weren't convicted of something, cuz what they did was bad.
Like tenth said, people only care cuz it's the result they want, if you did a sting and found nothing, nobody would watch it, and the idiots who want to believe would just ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
