6 ms·

What do you folks make of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs Against: O'Keefe is not a perfect journ

What do you folks make of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs Against: O'Keefe is not a perfect journalist, as agenda-driven as anyone anywhere For: These people were on the payroll, fired right after it happened, and Bob Creamer met with Obama 300 times. https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald has done a great job "following the money" even if they are massively biased. My vote is still up for grabs (tonight's debate might settle it), but a YUGE part of me does want to see an impartial investigation. The kind we won't get with Comey/Clinton/Lynch. Side note - very good PR of them to drop the video right after Obama criticized Trump for his rigging claims.

sickbeard 10y ago
If at this point you haven't made up your mind, I'm not sure what else you need bro
- ludicast 10y ago
  The third debate most likely :). I have them at 1-1 so the winner of this debate will have won twice as many debates as the other. Small sample size I know. If he is idiotic and has all of his points torn apart, I will have a hard time pulling the lever for him. Intelligence matters. But if he wins, and then will have won 2 out of 3 debates against a person who spent a month home prepping for them and avoiding the people of this country, that would be very compelling. It all depends on him making a full heel-face-turn for tonight's rubbermatch.
  - sickbeard 10y ago
    I know it's your choice and everything but can I ask why you don't just look at their policies.. compared to who wins a debate?
    - ludicast 10y ago
      I have, and I am 50/50 split on those :). I sidewith.com had me at 1% point between bernie, hillary and trump. I 1 - am rabidly pro-choice 2 - think the second amendment is pretty good as is, maybe with a few additional checks. 3 - default pro-cop but think we have too many laws 4 - like the wall but not a fan of massive deportations 5 - would not like to have the migrant influx that europe has, even if the crisis is partly our fault 6 - anti-PC 7 - pro pot-legalization (that's actually more repub this go-round) 8 - believe in climate change 9 - pro-israel 10 - want liberal supreme court justices 11 - think we are taking a very naive approach to the risk of terrorism in order to avoid offending many groups 12 - massively turned on by this https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps... 13 - have to admit if you put them in a box and made them play jeopardy with only geographic/polysci questions, he would get killed. 14 - want less of the typical pro-jesus anti-gay slant the old guard GOP has had (admittedly that's not him but is the Silver Fox at his side)
      - coldpie 10y ago
        Establishment Democrats like Clinton agree with: 1, 2, 3, half of 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 Disagree with: other half of 4, probably 11 Republicans agree with: half of 2, 3, half of 4 Republicans disagree with: 1, other half of 2, 3, other half of 4, 7, 8, 10, 14 Toss-ups, non-issues, and uselessly vague include 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12. I dunno, it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
        ludicast 10y ago
        I completely don't agree with your "question redistricting". I'm voting for a person not a party. For example, 3 is solidly not Hillary. Speakers she had at the DNC, tweets after Dallas shooting, on and on. Trump is 100% pro-lgbt and has never been a christian, so 14 isn't him. Trump also is for legalizing medicinal and letting states determine recreational, so 7 is him, not her (have a strong sense from things she's written that she won't legalize). And the ones you earmarked as toss-ups etc are more him. They also are VERY important to ME, so not the non-issues you paint them as. There's a few others like this. But I have to go.
  - skummetmaelk 10y ago
    >Intelligence matters. And you are undecided.
    - ludicast 10y ago
      It's doesn't matter above/beyond all issues, otherwise I'd be writing in Cruz, who I agree with on 3% of the issues. If Trump had 10 or more extra IQ points, he would be an easier sell to me. I do feel his ridiculous energy levels might compensate for this and then some, not sure though.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  Just rig the election paper. A sane person can't vote for either of them. But a good citizen's duty is to vote. Write my name on it. If you vote for Trump you're a bigot. If you vote for Hillary you're a hypocrite.
myf01d 10y ago
Most people here are aggressive pro Clinton, I've seen several anti-Clinton stories here suppressed and reported within minutes.
- sschueller 10y ago
  I am amazed by the aggressiveness from both sides this time around. People aren't even talking to each other anymore or listening. No one seems to want to find out why someone would pick a certain candidate over the other. Very sad and scary.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    It's difficult when one side has a clear disinterest in using facts to back up their arguments. See evgen's comment in this thread for an immediate example. How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence for truth is conspiracy theory Youtube videos and right-wing conspiracy theory websites?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - makomk 10y ago
      Presumably the same way as you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence is an unheard-of dating website that claims to be a UN member which is being conspired against by the UN, and who thinks anyone who finds this fishy is an evil Nazi rape supporter.
      - coldpie 10y ago
        What?
        makomk 10y ago
        That was my general reaction too, followed by wondering if I should start backing away slowly - this was an actual situation I got an unexpected view of yesterday as a result of a whole bunch of Clinton supporters latching onto some dubious claims and refusing to let go, no-one on that side being willing to challenge it, and their claims spilling over slightly into the HN comments. This election is pretty well post-truth.
evgen 10y ago
Start with http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-vi... and go from there regarding the validity of these videos. tl;dr is that the 'reporter' in this case has a history of making misleading videos by collecting out of context quotes and then splicing in different video segments that make these out of context ones seem sinister.
- matwood 10y ago
  Given that people have already been fired/quit and others are distancing there must be some truth to these videos. Is there any link attacking the validity of the video itself and not the source?
  - evgen 10y ago
    There does not have to be truth for people to decide to fall upon their swords to avoid any suggestion of a scandal. Given how apparently gullible people are the simple fact is that whether it is true or not does not matter, nor does the actual context in which the conversations occurred. If you worked for a campaign and I had a bar conversation with you about how voting fraud might happen and then only saved/broadcasted the part after your initial "we do everything we can to prevent it, but if you were to ask me how it could happen given existing safeguards then..." bit of the conversation then I would expect to read about you getting fired or quitting the next day as well. To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.
  - aljones 10y ago
    On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was fired from her appointed position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture.[1][2] Her firing was an administration reaction to media reports on video excerpts from her address to an event of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in March 2010 and commentary posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on his website.[3] Based on these excerpts, the NAACP condemned Sherrod's remarks as racist and U.S. government officials called on the official to resign. But, after a longer version of her address was reviewed and her remarks were understood to be about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices, the NAACP and White House officials apologized. In addition, United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod
matwood 10y ago
None of this is really new, it's just proof is finally coming out. The problem is Trump is so dislikable that it shadows how dislikable Clinton is herself. If the GOP had put forward anyone else other than Trump (and maybe Cruz), this would not even be a race. I'm baffled by people who enthusiastically support either of these two.
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  Personally I enthusiastically support Clinton because she has inclusionary policies - for a country with such a terrible (and continuing) history of exclusion, it's the right step forward.
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    Except for those on the right. They're 'irredeemable' 'deplorable' 'racists' and we should cease to do any business with all of them immediately.
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      I believe she said "half of his supporters" were in that basket and then -specifically- stated that the other half "are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." Sounds inclusionary to me.
  - jshevek 10y ago
    Clinton has inclusionary polices?? Can you explain what you mean? She is not as rude and crude as Trump, but she is divisive in her own way.
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ - I'd say at least half of those are "inclusionary". Definitely the first 8 if you want to pick up on specific ones.
luma 10y ago
I don't see how this link is even remotely pertinent to the topic at hand. More election-year BS leaking onto everything. edit: sigh. the pro-[candidate] downvote brigade is ever present. This election cannot be over soon enough.
- abgawrv 10y ago
  The feasibility of voter fraud is not a potential flaw in an election?
  - luma 10y ago
    No, conspiracy videos promoting a particular campaign's talking points add nothing to the article as presented. Leave this sort of crap to Reddit.
DominikR 10y ago
He is obviously pro-Trump (me too btw), but there seem to be proven links between some of the people shown in the videos and HRC's campaign. Notably Zulema Rodriguez who bragged that she took part in inciting the Chicago protest has received payments from the Clinton campaign a few days before the protests (listed on the FEC website - link: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016 https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... ) What's also interesting is that most people shown in the videos are contributors to Huffington Post and some of them switch between sometimes being a contributor and sometimes being mentioned as "activist" with a fake name. Aaron Black wrote one article as a Catholic priest and another one as a gay man suffering from AIDS. (I get the impression that Huffington Post and really most of the media just makes up stories or that they are being played)

sickbeard 10y ago

If at this point you haven't made up your mind, I'm not sure what else you need bro

ludicast 10y ago
The third debate most likely :). I have them at 1-1 so the winner of this debate will have won twice as many debates as the other. Small sample size I know. If he is idiotic and has all of his points torn apart, I will have a hard time pulling the lever for him. Intelligence matters. But if he wins, and then will have won 2 out of 3 debates against a person who spent a month home prepping for them and avoiding the people of this country, that would be very compelling. It all depends on him making a full heel-face-turn for tonight's rubbermatch.
- sickbeard 10y ago
  I know it's your choice and everything but can I ask why you don't just look at their policies.. compared to who wins a debate?
  - ludicast 10y ago
    I have, and I am 50/50 split on those :). I sidewith.com had me at 1% point between bernie, hillary and trump. I 1 - am rabidly pro-choice 2 - think the second amendment is pretty good as is, maybe with a few additional checks. 3 - default pro-cop but think we have too many laws 4 - like the wall but not a fan of massive deportations 5 - would not like to have the migrant influx that europe has, even if the crisis is partly our fault 6 - anti-PC 7 - pro pot-legalization (that's actually more repub this go-round) 8 - believe in climate change 9 - pro-israel 10 - want liberal supreme court justices 11 - think we are taking a very naive approach to the risk of terrorism in order to avoid offending many groups 12 - massively turned on by this https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps... 13 - have to admit if you put them in a box and made them play jeopardy with only geographic/polysci questions, he would get killed. 14 - want less of the typical pro-jesus anti-gay slant the old guard GOP has had (admittedly that's not him but is the Silver Fox at his side)
    - coldpie 10y ago
      Establishment Democrats like Clinton agree with: 1, 2, 3, half of 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 Disagree with: other half of 4, probably 11 Republicans agree with: half of 2, 3, half of 4 Republicans disagree with: 1, other half of 2, 3, other half of 4, 7, 8, 10, 14 Toss-ups, non-issues, and uselessly vague include 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12. I dunno, it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
      - ludicast 10y ago
        I completely don't agree with your "question redistricting". I'm voting for a person not a party. For example, 3 is solidly not Hillary. Speakers she had at the DNC, tweets after Dallas shooting, on and on. Trump is 100% pro-lgbt and has never been a christian, so 14 isn't him. Trump also is for legalizing medicinal and letting states determine recreational, so 7 is him, not her (have a strong sense from things she's written that she won't legalize). And the ones you earmarked as toss-ups etc are more him. They also are VERY important to ME, so not the non-issues you paint them as. There's a few others like this. But I have to go.
- skummetmaelk 10y ago
  >Intelligence matters. And you are undecided.
  - ludicast 10y ago
    It's doesn't matter above/beyond all issues, otherwise I'd be writing in Cruz, who I agree with on 3% of the issues. If Trump had 10 or more extra IQ points, he would be an easier sell to me. I do feel his ridiculous energy levels might compensate for this and then some, not sure though.
angry-hacker 10y ago
Just rig the election paper. A sane person can't vote for either of them. But a good citizen's duty is to vote. Write my name on it. If you vote for Trump you're a bigot. If you vote for Hillary you're a hypocrite.

myf01d 10y ago

Most people here are aggressive pro Clinton, I've seen several anti-Clinton stories here suppressed and reported within minutes.

sschueller 10y ago
I am amazed by the aggressiveness from both sides this time around. People aren't even talking to each other anymore or listening. No one seems to want to find out why someone would pick a certain candidate over the other. Very sad and scary.
- coldpie 10y ago
  It's difficult when one side has a clear disinterest in using facts to back up their arguments. See evgen's comment in this thread for an immediate example. How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence for truth is conspiracy theory Youtube videos and right-wing conspiracy theory websites?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - makomk 10y ago
    Presumably the same way as you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence is an unheard-of dating website that claims to be a UN member which is being conspired against by the UN, and who thinks anyone who finds this fishy is an evil Nazi rape supporter.
    - coldpie 10y ago
      What?
      - makomk 10y ago
        That was my general reaction too, followed by wondering if I should start backing away slowly - this was an actual situation I got an unexpected view of yesterday as a result of a whole bunch of Clinton supporters latching onto some dubious claims and refusing to let go, no-one on that side being willing to challenge it, and their claims spilling over slightly into the HN comments. This election is pretty well post-truth.

evgen 10y ago

Start with http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-vi... and go from there regarding the validity of these videos. tl;dr is that the 'reporter' in this case has a history of making misleading videos by collecting out of context quotes and then splicing in different video segments that make these out of context ones seem sinister.

matwood 10y ago
Given that people have already been fired/quit and others are distancing there must be some truth to these videos. Is there any link attacking the validity of the video itself and not the source?
- evgen 10y ago
  There does not have to be truth for people to decide to fall upon their swords to avoid any suggestion of a scandal. Given how apparently gullible people are the simple fact is that whether it is true or not does not matter, nor does the actual context in which the conversations occurred. If you worked for a campaign and I had a bar conversation with you about how voting fraud might happen and then only saved/broadcasted the part after your initial "we do everything we can to prevent it, but if you were to ask me how it could happen given existing safeguards then..." bit of the conversation then I would expect to read about you getting fired or quitting the next day as well. To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.
- aljones 10y ago
  On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was fired from her appointed position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture.[1][2] Her firing was an administration reaction to media reports on video excerpts from her address to an event of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in March 2010 and commentary posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on his website.[3] Based on these excerpts, the NAACP condemned Sherrod's remarks as racist and U.S. government officials called on the official to resign. But, after a longer version of her address was reviewed and her remarks were understood to be about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices, the NAACP and White House officials apologized. In addition, United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod

matwood 10y ago

None of this is really new, it's just proof is finally coming out. The problem is Trump is so dislikable that it shadows how dislikable Clinton is herself. If the GOP had put forward anyone else other than Trump (and maybe Cruz), this would not even be a race. I'm baffled by people who enthusiastically support either of these two.

zimpenfish 10y ago
Personally I enthusiastically support Clinton because she has inclusionary policies - for a country with such a terrible (and continuing) history of exclusion, it's the right step forward.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  Except for those on the right. They're 'irredeemable' 'deplorable' 'racists' and we should cease to do any business with all of them immediately.
  - zimpenfish 10y ago
    I believe she said "half of his supporters" were in that basket and then -specifically- stated that the other half "are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." Sounds inclusionary to me.
- jshevek 10y ago
  Clinton has inclusionary polices?? Can you explain what you mean? She is not as rude and crude as Trump, but she is divisive in her own way.
  - zimpenfish 10y ago
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ - I'd say at least half of those are "inclusionary". Definitely the first 8 if you want to pick up on specific ones.

luma 10y ago

I don't see how this link is even remotely pertinent to the topic at hand. More election-year BS leaking onto everything. edit: sigh. the pro-[candidate] downvote brigade is ever present. This election cannot be over soon enough.

abgawrv 10y ago
The feasibility of voter fraud is not a potential flaw in an election?
- luma 10y ago
  No, conspiracy videos promoting a particular campaign's talking points add nothing to the article as presented. Leave this sort of crap to Reddit.

DominikR 10y ago

He is obviously pro-Trump (me too btw), but there seem to be proven links between some of the people shown in the videos and HRC's campaign. Notably Zulema Rodriguez who bragged that she took part in inciting the Chicago protest has received payments from the Clinton campaign a few days before the protests (listed on the FEC website - link: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016 https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... ) What's also interesting is that most people shown in the videos are contributors to Huffington Post and some of them switch between sometimes being a contributor and sometimes being mentioned as "activist" with a fake name. Aaron Black wrote one article as a Catholic priest and another one as a gay man suffering from AIDS. (I get the impression that Huffington Post and really most of the media just makes up stories or that they are being played)