Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nah

U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You're coming at this from entirely the wrong direction.

 

 

 

I disagree. It's easy to dismiss it from their side if you attack their flimsy bullshit, because to them that is as important as them believing in religion. It is part of their identity. That automatically puts them on the defensive.

If you attack it as if what they said was true and it doesn't matter though? It's much harder for them to dismiss. They want us to be outraged about it, but if we simply acknowledge it and dont care because its not a big deal? It means that their best outrageous fake news is worse than a lie - its just ineffective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you attack it as if what they said was true and it doesn't matter though? It's much harder for them to dismiss. They want us to be outraged about it, but if we simply acknowledge it and dont care because its not a big deal? It means that their best outrageous fake news is worse than a lie - its just ineffective.

I think another way of putting this (which I whole-heartedly agree) is it's more persuasive to point out the flaws in someone's premise than attack someone's source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SweetPea said:

Ahahahaha, I'm laughing my ass off here. Could you be any more predictable? I would have been willing to bet all my money on you attacking the source, instead of acknowledging that there are some really shitty people on your side. Racism, campaign funds mismanagement, lying, treating voters as useful idiots? All fine, as long as it's from your side. The video doesn't matter anyway, because it's from a 'bad' source from a "shady link". 

Hahaha, what a bunch of hypocrites. The side of facts and objectivity my ass.

For fuck's sake.

Color me not-shocked you'd come here to breathlessly link that story and then get your knickers in a twist when we don't react in righteous outrage because we know better than to credulously accept anything coming from James O'Keefe and his group of empty-headed morons. So here's a little history lesson about James O'Keefe. I don't expect you to even take the time to read through these links, but maybe someone who just lurks and doesn't post will gain some insight into this dipshit's unethical and fraudulent "journalism" tactics.

James O'Keefe tries to plant a fake story in the Washington Post and gets busted.

Quote

The context for O’Keefe’s blow-off is by now famous. The Post on Nov. 27 reported that a woman had approached the newspaper — specifically, reporter Beth Reinhard — with explosive material about Moore, a Republican who was then in a tight Alabama race for a U.S. Senate seat with eventual victor Doug Jones, a Democrat. The woman alleged that Moore had impregnated her in 1992, when she was 15, leading to an abortion. The “tip” came after Reinhard had collaborated on a blockbuster article in which an Alabama woman, Leigh Corfman, alleged that Moore had initiated sexual contact with her in the late ’70s, when she was 14 years old. That was real news.

Through the use of public records and some careful Internet searching, The Post suspected that the woman, whom it identified as Jaime T. Phillips, might be working for O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, which specializes in outfitting its operatives with hidden recording devices as well as aliases — the better to record media figures and Democratic operatives saying embarrassing things. Indeed, The Post’s stakeout spotted the woman entering Project Veritas’s Mamaroneck, N.Y., offices, setting the stage for Davis’s questions for O’Keefe.

O'Keefe tries to embarrass reporter interviewing him by sexually harrassing her.

Quote

In 2010, O'Keefe planned to embarrass CNN journalist Abbie Boudreau by bringing her on a boat with sexually explicit props and recording the two in awkward conversation. Boudreau was working on a film about the conservative activist movement and planned to meet and interview O'Keefe in his office.

O'Keefe busted selectively editing phone conversation to make the conversation sound the opposite of how it actually went.

Quote

After several minutes of back and forth, in which Turner attempts to convince Fox that his clients are earnest environmentalists, Fox says that “obviously there are projects that we are working on ahead of time, that we’re working on now, that do sound like they would be interesting to your clients.” He immediately follows that comment up with a stipulation. “However, I really feel like I would need a more formal approach than just ‘Come meet me for coffee, this is the company we work for,’” Fox is heard saying. “We don’t know much about your company...I would need to have more transparency than you’re giving me right now to feel comfortable with doing that.”

Fox ends the conversation by reiterating that Turner’s clients will have to reveal themselves if they want to fund one of his projects. Reassured in his belief that Beacon International was just a scam, Fox all but forgot the entire ordeal, he told The Daily Beast. That is, until this week, when O’Keefe unveiled his latest undercover sting operation during the Cannes Film Festival.

In the recording, which you can listen to below, Fox is heard repeatedly asking Brandon Turner from Beacon International to identify his clients. Turner says only that his clients are “people from Europe, and the Middle East, but mainly Europe at this point,” environmentalists who are interested in funding an anti-fracking film. Turner continuously declines to name the European benefactors and instead asks Fox several times whether he’d be willing to set up a meeting. Fox explains in a variety of ways that he “can’t participate in something where, um, we’re taking money from people who aren’t identified. That’s not kosher for us.”

After several minutes of back and forth, in which Turner attempts to convince Fox that his clients are earnest environmentalists, Fox says that “obviously there are projects that we are working on ahead of time, that we’re working on now, that do sound like they would be interesting to your clients.” He immediately follows that comment up with a stipulation. “However, I really feel like I would need a more formal approach than just ‘Come meet me for coffee, this is the company we work for,’” Fox is heard saying. “We don’t know much about your company...I would need to have more transparency than you’re giving me right now to feel comfortable with doing that.”

Fox ends the conversation by reiterating that Turner’s clients will have to reveal themselves if they want to fund one of his projects. Reassured in his belief that Beacon International was just a scam, Fox all but forgot the entire ordeal, he told The Daily Beast. That is, until this week, when O’Keefe unveiled his latest undercover sting operation during the Cannes Film Festival.

At the end of O’Keefe’s video, Fox is heard saying, “Obviously there are projects that we are working on ahead of time, that we’re working on now, that do sound like they would be interesting to your clients.” But his stipulations have been cut.

“We have them caught in total deception,” Fox says. “This phone call reveals exactly how they work. They willfully portray it in the wrong light. They edit it so it sounds like you said something that you didn’t. Luckily I had the full tape.”

O'Keefe busted trying to bribe leftist activists to riot during Trump's inauguration.

So yeah, this guy is a bullshitter and con-artist and nothing he releases should be believed until the full-length tapes are released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Isn't it a smidgen different when it's a random campaign worker vs, oh, the POTUS? 

How intellectually honest is it to make those equivalent?

Did anyone make those two equivalent?

1 hour ago, mormont said:

There is no way on earth you would credit a similar source if the positions were reversed.

Yes I would, this is direct video evidence, doesn't matter who posted it. If it was just a rumor, or accusation without evidence? Sure, the legitimacy would be very dependent on the source. Here, I think the videos can stand on their own feet. I mean I can't really think of any additional dialogue that might have been cut, that would have changed the meaning behind the repeated use of the phrase "modern fairytales begin with: once I am elected..." or the repeated use of racial slurs. None that I find believable anyway.

Quote

And finally, as Kal has asked, what's your point? What, even, is this video supposed to prove? Why are you posting it?

Maybe because there's a week left until the elections and campaign workers have been caught admitting their candidate won't keep promises if elected? Don't you think voters might care about something like this? Why must I be immediately questioned about my motives? When did I ever question someone else's motives for posting an article critical of conservatives?

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you attack it as if what they said was true and it doesn't matter though? It's much harder for them to dismiss. They want us to be outraged about it, but if we simply acknowledge it and dont care because its not a big deal? It means that their best outrageous fake news is worse than a lie - its just ineffective. 

There's something to this, but not for the reasons you think. I acknowledge pretty much all of the bullshit that the Republican Party does, but I don't understand why you can't admit to the slightest criticism of the Democrats. You always have to delve into petty arguments to somehow try and make them look spotless. I would think that when your opponents are literal nazis, you could easily admit to some of the wrongs on your side and still come out looking much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So yeah, this guy is a bullshitter and con-artist and nothing he releases should be believed until the full-length tapes are released.

Does he release uncut material?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think another way of putting this (which I whole-heartedly agree) is it's more persuasive to point out the flaws in someone's premise than attack someone's source.

Pointing out how and why the source is utterly without value is doing that, yes? Showing the cite source is bs, however, for the ilks, proves to be utterly without use for they keep going "Dems! Dems! Dems!" rather than dealing with why the source which is supposed to prove leftists, dems, whatever are lying racist assholes is a made up and / or manipulated out and out lie. :P

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

 

There's something to this, but not for the reasons you think. I acknowledge pretty much all of the bullshit that the Republican Party does, but I don't understand why you can't admit to the slightest criticism of the Democrats. You always have to delve into petty arguments to somehow try and make them look spotless. I would think that when your opponents are literal nazis, you could easily admit to some of the wrongs on your side and still come out looking much better.

By saying that this happened, how am I not admitting to the criticism? I am 100% believing that at least one campaign staff member is a racist asshole. Hell, I got dragged the other day for saying Ellison should be investigated. 

Again. I ask - so? Is that person running for office? Is that person IN office? If not, then your news here is, at best, "random campaign worker is not a saint". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Does he release uncut material?

No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Pointing out how and why the source is utterly without value is doing that, yes?

Not really. You're attacking the credibility of the source instead of talking about the accusation. It is the same thing as attacking the credibility of a sexual assault victim instead of pointing out holes in the actual accusation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Pointing out how and why the source is utterly without value is doing that, yes?

That fact that O'Keefe is one of the most infamous frauds in political media doesn't change what's on that tape.  The important thing is what's on that tape, whatever the context, isn't really relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

There's something to this, but not for the reasons you think. I acknowledge pretty much all of the bullshit that the Republican Party does, but I don't understand why you can't admit to the slightest criticism of the Democrats. You always have to delve into petty arguments to somehow try and make them look spotless. I would think that when your opponents are literal nazis, you could easily admit to some of the wrongs on your side and still come out looking much better.

That video isn't showing that though.  It's showing one democrat saying something that would probably get them fired from the campaign, and you're trying to use that to paint all democrats everywhere into the same box.  It's literally the definition of a strawman argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SweetPea said:

Ahahahaha, I'm laughing my ass off here. Could you be any more predictable? I would have been willing to bet all my money on you attacking the source, instead of acknowledging that there are some really shitty people on your side. Racism, campaign funds mismanagement, lying, treating voters as useful idiots? All fine, as long as it's from your side. The video doesn't matter anyway, because it's from a 'bad' source from a "shady link". 

Hahaha, what a bunch of hypocrites. The side of facts and objectivity my ass.

Of course your laughing. That's because you think you're really slick.
But, as I told you, you ain't slick. And everyone knows it. And the reality is everyone is laughing at you and your conservative horseshit.

I know what your thinking, "man oh man, I sure showed those libs a thing or two!" But, you didn't.

Let me tell you something. I've lived around and been around conservatives for most of my life. I know all their bullshit tactics and methods. You're not doing anything new or innovative here, even though you think you are and laughing about it, but the reality is the joke is on you. If anyone is being predictable here, it's you.

If you think that I'm in denial that about people on the left screwing up, think again. Sure people on the left some times do stupid shit. I'm aware of that.

Let's start with Al Franken. I like Al Franken. It's hard not to. He wrote disparaging books about Rush Limbaugh and came up with "Supply Side Jesus". How could a good liberal not like him. And yet, I damn well know he fucked up and needed to be removed from the Senate. And you know, you had posters on this very board believing his accusers and calling for his resignation.

I'd say the progressive response to Al Franken went down a bit differently than the Kavanaugh confirmation.

If there were a US president that I'd consider a hero of mine, it would likely be FDR. And yet I'm quite aware that FDR screwed up. His biggest screw up being the interment of Japanese Americans during WW2. And I think that is something the vast majority of liberals have regretted ever since. And if you roll about two or three generations later, most liberals would acknowledge it was a big screw up on FDR's part and most liberals, including myself, are determined to not allow such a shameful episode ever happening again. But do you know who did try to defend that crap? Two conservative knuckleheads. Both Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter tried to defend it. Think about that.

And of course, there are the screw ups of LBJ. I'm aware of them.

So please don't give me this garbage that "evil liberuls or so hypocritical and mean to conservatives", since now you've changed from "reasonable centrist" guy just calling "balls and strikes" to full blown whiny conservative snowflake that whines continuously about how poor little conservative just can't get a fair shake in this country, even though in reality they hold the majority of power in this country and have always been a strong political force in this country.

And I certainly don't deny there may be some racism on the left. But even acknowledging that, it doesn't mean the left is bad on racial issues as the American Right. Once again, we have lots of empirical evidence, that continue to ignore, that both racism and sexism were huge factors in the Trump vote. And then of course, we have years of dog whistle politics by conservatives and Republicans. I know people on this board have brought the likes of Lee Atwater on these threads. Maybe you should read them more carefully and drop the likes of James O'Keefe and awful internet trolls. You might actually learn something about how American politics works. And might actually learn something about actual policy disputes. But you are not really interested in that, now are you? More interested, I think, in being an alt right troll, and whining about "poor conservatives!"

On the racism thing, it's kind of like Jonah Shitbird, writing about racism, in Liberal Facism, on the American left. I don't deny that issue has been on the left. And in fact, I go far to say, it helped break apart the old New Deal coalition. I've actually heard of the Nixon Hardhats, probably unlike you, whose knowledge of US political history is pretty limited. But, what did I expect from somebodies knowledge comes from Jame's O'Keefe and awful Twitter trolls. But getting back to Shitbird. Sure, he made some valid points about the American Left, but largely didn't mention how conservatives gleefully took advantage of the racial tension of the 1960s to build their movement. And you know, that's kind of how conservatives roll.  And of course it doesn't mean the left is just as bad as the right on this topic, even though you'd like to believe so (just remember, you failed to understand the problematic nature of Newt Gringrich's comments that "poor people just need to work harder!") and so would every other conservative. You and they are just plain wrong.

With regard to these videos you have posted I'll make a few comments. With regard with Gillum, yeah I'm sure Republicans never ever run to their right to win a nomination and then try to tilt towards the center to win the general election. But, according to O'Keefe, evidently only Democrats do that, never our sweet and virtuous Republican Party, because the "true conservatism" is just so good and pure. I have to wonder what O'Keefe would have to say about Trump's promise to give us something "wonderful" with regard to healthcare. Well were still waiting. And I wonder what O'keefe would have to say about Republicans lying their asses off about the ACA for seven years. As far as Gillum not accomplishing his policy goals because of Republican obstruction, well that is not really shocking. And in fact, that campaign worker is quite correct that in getting progressive policies in place, it will likely take a sustained effort, which means several elections will have to be won. And about the cracker thing, well I'm a cracker, a hillbilly, or a briar and you know, I really don't get offended by those things. But then again, my ancestors came to this country freely and were not forced to come here as slaves. And maybe it's just because I'm a bit mentally tougher than your average fragile conservative snowflake.

As far as those campaign workers go, I wouldn't advise them to do what they are doing, as not using funds for their intended purpose is not a small thing. So bad on them. But I will note, they aren't using the funds, evidently, for their own personal enrichment, but trying to help people in desperate straits, even if their methods are misguided. While I'm not exactly a complete open borders person, I do believe that immigration overall is a net positive, and we should be talking about increasing legal immigration into this country, but Trump and his supporters have so fucked up the issue with their bull pucky that having a sensible conversation about the upsides of immigration has become impossible.

With regard, to Mr. O'Keefe, people are right to view anything he has put out with a deep suspicion as he has earned a reputation for using very shady tactics. Sure, I get the argument that some things are bad on their face and there really isn't the need to get the "context". That said, a lot of O'Keefe puts out is dubious and people are right to approach is stuff with caution and get the full context of what happened or what was said.

And finally, I keep pressing you on this question of how the American Right is better than the American Left and really you've given no sensible answer to this question. Oh sure, you tried with some feeble nonsense about free speech (along with other unspecified grievances that likely have about zero merit), but that quickly got pointed as being a load of BS. I suspect you have really have nothing very substantive, and what were left with is something like rants about  Hillary's emails or maybe rants about space colonies on Mars. Who in the fuck knows.
 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×