Jump to content

10,000 things Supporters of Hillary on this forum are doomed not to understand.

Guest

By Guest
in Airline Aviation Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Don Hudson

Don Hudson

Posted
Posted

Hi DEFCON - You've focussed on one aspect of my posts but you haven't acknowledged my thoughts on the Washington Establishment and what I take Trump to represent. I want you to recognize that I am not defending Hillary, I am defending the argument that she is the more stable of the two terrible choices. I see no evidence that Donald Trump is anywhere near as stable a personality. 

Hi Seeker - Same for you - you quote one sentence and set it up as a straw man to advance your views, asking me to "watch a video and you'll see" without offering an exchange based upon what's being said in my post.

What about the rest of my contribution where I discuss the value of Trump's presence in the process and my agreement that the Washington establishment needs an intervention?

=====

These views that I express are not extreme at all, not in normal times, anyway.

In fact, they represent ordinary values which have been expressed by both parties at times when bi-partisan compromise was how government worked.

The Republican Party was once the party of responsibility, accountability, hard work for proper rewards, decency and family values. The Democrats were for workers rights, human rights, a fair shake in the marketplace of employment and progress through spending...( couldn't resist).

Where on earth has that gone, guys? 

People have been polarized in response to the extreme views of the Republican Party and its Tea-Party rump since 2008, when Mitch McConnell vowed on the day of Obama's inauguration to obstruct everything the new, black President attempted to achieve.

People have been polarized and frightened in response to the extreme views which Donald Trump-as-presidential-candidate has been expressing both during the initial campaign for candidacy and during the campaign for the Presidency.

For this election, my view is that we should "secure the aircraft first, then proceed with what we have".

Donald Trump may turn out to be just the person to dismantle the Establishment but he has incessantly signalled, even long before he was a candidate, that he is unfit for that chance. Such signalling is part of the vetting process currently underway for the Presidency and we are seeing what Trump is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seeker

Seeker

Posted
Posted

Sorry Don.  I do respect the time you took to posts your views.  The problem is that I'm not nearly as eloquent or as well-read as you are.  I will not be able to discuss these things with you at a level you desire and I shouldn't have begun an exchange of posts that mislead you into thinking I could or would.

My final thoughts before I bow out - neither is fit to lead but I agree with you that Clinton is probably the slightly better of the two choices (even though she belongs in jail).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Hudson

Don Hudson

Posted
Posted

Seeker, the real problem I think is that the issues are so complicated that they're beyond our collective abilities to marshal facts, present cogent arguments and come to conclusions prior to voting!

In so many ways, it shouldn't be this complicated and, at present, this bad but it is. We've watched Fox, CNN, MSNBC for months now and it is tough to trust any one of them, so shrill are the messages.

The media's and the web's role in this has to be examined along with the tenets of decency and respect. The media is much more than just a mirror!

We have seen heightened in this election round, what I think are "normal", really nasty comments which also used to take place in rallies since Goldwater and Wallace, but which we'd see the next day after we'd had time to calm down.

At present, the world watched the Andrew Smith white-tie dinner live, and immediately the conversation between 50 million different opinions goes viral and solidifies into a reality when only half-(or less) baked.

It is the other side of the question, "Should we...?", (when it comes to the modern miracle of technology).

Didn't mean to jump all over you guys...sometimes the fingers actually do leave the hands... ;-)

I think I'll take a break too. There's a second grandbaby on the way in November...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seeker

Seeker

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Don Hudson said:

I think I'll take a break too. There's a second grandbaby on the way in November...

Now that's something to look forward to - unlike the other thing that will happen in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DEFCON

DEFCON

Posted
Posted

Good day Don

I've been thinking about what you've said and how I might best respond.

"You've focused on one aspect of my posts but you haven't acknowledged my thoughts on the Washington Establishment and what I take Trump to represent."

If I've understood your position accurately, you see the Trump effect on the Establishment as a positive, but the man himself as a negative.

So then, if Trump has shot himself in the head as the polls are trying to suggest, who will be available to continue the intervention in Washington under Hilary?

To my mind, a Clinton win ensures the politics of the US will return to a business as usual approach, which is the reality where politicians are routinely bought and manged by the same Establishment characters that are funding and support Hilary,

In this scenario, the little people will have given up any hope of a better future, literally forever. Once our generation is gone and our children have exhausted their inheritances and realize their McJobs won't sustain them in the lifestyle their parents have accustomed them to, they will become willing dependents of government and the masters of the global corporatocracy. And Mitch would have us believe that I and others that think like me are the gullible ones.

 

"I want you to recognize that I am not defending Hillary, I am defending the argument that she is the more stable of the two terrible choices." I see no evidence that Donald Trump is anywhere near as stable a personality."

Let's examine those contentions.

First; I can only speak for myself, but I don't want the kind of stability a Clinton Presidency promises, I've simply had enough of so-called Democratic governance, not to mention the conventional Republican version too; I really do hope for "Change You Can Believe In" this time out.

As it stands now, I see Trump as a proven commodity in that he's the only human political catalyst available and capable of stimulating a major and long overdue National political overhaul. How can a democracy continue when pretty much everyone occupying power positions is indebted to the upper crust and in their service?

Consider the most recent and terrifying Hilary related Wikileaks release. In one of her promissory speeches to the Wall Street banksters, Hilary advised her audience that she would prefer to bring down international trade barriers & national borders. Well holy crap, can her comments be taken as anything other than anti-Constitutional and a prelude to civil war?

So then, we now are aware that Hilary confirmed her intention to work the system to achieve a North America wide free trading zone and everything else that goes with it to the bankster elite. With no borders to define the US and its once proud culture, the Clinton plot is precisely aligned with the Conspiracy Theory model that was debated here on this forum several years ago, remember the 'Amero'? At that time, most viewers thought the notion was as improbable as it was laughable; but now that we've been forewarned of Hilary's intention to pursue the Merkel model, the theme that is destroying the EU and would soon eliminate the United States of America, isn't it fair to ask supporters if her leadership goals are aligned at all with the wishes and expectations of the American people, or is she more likely inclined to serve the interests of another master?

IMO, Clinton followers ought to be asking themselves what it is about Hilary and her ideology that makes her worthy of their vote?

 

I'd like to write more, but I've got a lot going on around me right now, which makes the kind of focus this debate demands quite difficult.

 

  

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Trump gains on Clinton despite furor over women,http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-gains-on-clinton-despite-furor-over-women-election-comments-reuters-ipsos-poll/ar-AAjfzLU?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp

 

Donald Trump gained on Hillary Clinton among American voters this week, cutting her lead nearly in half despite a string of women accusing him of unwanted sexual advances and the furore over his disputed claims that the election process is rigged, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The survey also showed that 63 percent of Americans, including a third of Republicans, believe the New York real estate mogul has committed sexual assault in the past, though the Republican presidential candidate has denied the recent accusations.

Clinton, the Democratic former secretary of state, led Trump 44 percent to 40 percent, according to the Oct. 14-20 poll, a four-point lead, with the Nov. 8 election fast approaching. That compared with 44 percent for Clinton and 37 percent for Trump in the Oct. 7-13 poll released last week.

Clinton's lead also shrank in a separate four-way poll that included alternative party candidates: 43 percent supported her, while 39 percent supported Trump, 6 percent supported Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, and 2 percent supported Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Support for Clinton had been mostly rising in the seven-day tracking poll since the last week of August, when the candidates were about tied.

The latest reading showed that Trump's deficit narrowed to what it was before a video surfaced on Oct. 7 featuring him bragging about groping and kissing women. Several women have since accused him of making unwanted sexual advances in separate incidents from the early 1980s to 2007.

Trump has denied the allegations, calling them "totally and absolutely false."

The latest poll included a separate series of questions that asked people what they thought of Trump's conduct around women. It found 63 percent of American adults, including 34 percent of likely Republican voters, agreed with the statement "I believe Donald Trump has committed sexual assault in the past."

Reuters contacted a few of the poll respondents who said they felt that Trump had "committed sexual assault" but were still supporting his candidacy. Their answers were generally the same: Whatever Trump did with women in the past is less important to them than what he may do as president.

"I’m embarrassed that our country can’t come up with better candidates, to be honest with you," said Evelyn Brendemuhl, 83, of Hope, North Dakota. But "he’ll appoint more conservative judges, and she’s (Clinton) pro-abortion, and I’m not for that."

Gary Taylor, 59, a Republican from Colorado said his support stemmed mostly from a desire to see "something different than the last eight years" in the White House.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English in all 50 states. It included 1,640 people who were considered likely voters, given their voting history, registration status and stated intention to vote. It has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points, meaning results could vary by that much either way.

The poll questions on Trump's unwanted sexual advances scandal were asked of 1,915 American adults, including 546 likely Republican voters. It had a credibility interval of 3 percentage points for all adults and 5 points for Republican voters.

(Editing by Richard Valdmanis and Jonathan Oatis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydee

Jaydee

Posted
Posted

Re Dons post...

"I have stated over many years here, with polite but firm resistance by some, that the media filters critiques of established power such that mainstream media does not report inconvenient truths. I think this its the case today; nothing has changed except the mode of delivery."

"Chomsky would also agree and has written thus, that law enforcement agencies and powerful institutions do not pursue such cases even where the evidence is clear to anyone looking on. So I agree that there is complicity between established power and mainstream media."

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/21/pat-caddell-polling-is-all-over-the-place-shock-potential-is-enormous/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

“All of the tracking polls keep holding at Trump being ahead,” he continued. “And then all of these other polls that are one-off polls, or whatever … I don’t know how they’re doing some of these university polls. You just put the name of some university and apparently it becomes credible, whether they know what they’re doing, or not."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Hudson

Don Hudson

Posted
Posted

DEFCON - thanks for your response. 

The to-and-fro continues with the polls...it isn't over 'til it's over, and I think we've expressed our views well enough.

 

Jaydee, thank you too, for your responses.

The key is in knowing which group and which person knows what they're doing and which do not.

You don't put someone who doesn't know what they're doing in the cockpit of a modern airliner.

With politics the same principle applies, however both the standards for the job and the qualifications some bring to the job vary far more widely, with predictable results.

I'm not a Hillary fan. I know all too well that things, (as DEFCON has described), do have to change, and I agree with that.

Where we differ is in how that change is come about and who is to lead such change.

"Blowing it up" as some radical websites offer as a solution, is what one does to buildings when they're done.

It doesn't work so well with complex systems of governance, even in third world revolutions.

As you'd know from my posts, I've visited numerous Alt-Right sites, (I can list them for you but I'm sure you know many of them), as well as what Brietbart has to say. They began in November, 2008 - we still don't know what they stand for, but from what one can glean through the haze of their language, their plans for change are too narrow, too confining, too ideological and remind me of other times now unfortunately fading from collective memory.

But this election is going to go where it's going to go.

 

This does it for me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boestar

boestar

Posted
Posted

Riddle me this... So Hillary's crew send a bunch of people into Trump rallies to stir up the proverbial poop.  Ok cool.  Eject the troublemakers from the rally.  Oops wait... Thats NOT what happened.  instead of peacefully ejecting the rabble rousers from the rally, Trump himself incited the group to use force and violence.  

Any rally on one side of an issue will have protesters hired or flying solo.  It's a given and is allowed under free speech.  How those protesters are handled are a direct reflection on the group holding the rally.  the media conveniently leaves this part out of the equation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seeker

Seeker

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, boestar said:

Riddle me this... So Hillary's crew send a bunch of people into Trump rallies to stir up the proverbial poop.  Ok cool.  Eject the troublemakers from the rally.  Oops wait... Thats NOT what happened.  instead of peacefully ejecting the rabble rousers from the rally, Trump himself incited the group to use force and violence.  

Any rally on one side of an issue will have protesters hired or flying solo.  It's a given and is allowed under free speech.  How those protesters are handled are a direct reflection on the group holding the rally.  the media conveniently leaves this part out of the equation.

 

I don't think "it's given and allowed" that troublemakers can be hired, coached, injected and paid.  And if you want to point the finger of who "incited" the violence I would say it's the group who placed the paid troublemakers in the crowd with inflammatory t-shirts and sign boards not the guy who said, "throw the bums out!"  Here's a riddle for you - how do you "peacefully eject" someone that doesn't want to leave in a way that can't be characterized as being force or violence?  (What does "peacefully eject" even mean?)

In fact, if you watch the video, you can clearly see and hear that mentally unstable people are specifically chosen for these "protestor" roles and dressed up in inflammatory shirts with the hope and expectation that they will get create a violent confrontation - that's inciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Hudson

Don Hudson

Posted
Posted

From Snopes:

Project Veritas' Election 2016 'Rigging' Videos

James O'Keefe's Project Veritas released four 2016 election-related videos supposedly depicting rampant election fraud and misconduct on the part of Democrats.

Kim LaCapria
Kim LaCapria
Oct 18, 2016
project-veritas-rigging-2016.jpg

In October 2016, Project Veritas released a series of videos that they alleged demonstrated misconduct, impropriety, and vote "rigging" on the part of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff or other Democrats.

Project Veritas' YouTube channel displayed four "undercover" videos released in October 2016. The first video involved a surreptitiously recorded conversation between a covert operative for Project Veritas and Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin at a December 2015 Christmas party. In the clip, Schulkin surmised voter ID would prevent voter fraud and discussed the possibility of "bussing" voters to polling places:

 

 

The second video purportedly evidenced a culture of ambient misogyny at a Clinton field office, framed as a response to concurrent controversy over lewd remarks by Donald Trump captured on tape in 2005:

 

 

The third video involved a hidden recording of Democratic candidate Russ Feingold opining that Hillary Clinton "might issue an executive order" pertaining to guns:

 

 

The fourth and most controversial video purportedly depicted evidence that the Clinton campaign's field offices were tampering with Republican voter registrations and conspiring to incite violence at Trump rallies:

 

 

 

The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions.

The framing and style of videos created by James O'Keefe is well known due to his 2009 "sting" in which he and accomplice Hannah Giles visited ACORN offices and pretended to be seeking advice on how to run an illegal business that included the use of underage girls in the sex trade. The resulting videos — which were edited to create the impression that O'Keefe and Giles had spoken to ACORN representatives while dressed as a pimp and prostitute — dealt that organization a mortal blow before reports publicizing the deception in O'Keefe's videos came to light:

How quickly things seem to fall apart when James O’Keefe is the person who put them together.

O’Keefe’s incriminating ACORN video was shown to have been heavily edited — neither he nor Hannah Giles were actually in pimp and prostitute get-up when they spoke to ACORN employees, for example — and no criminal prosecutions of ACORN followed. While not letting ACORN off the hook for showing “terrible judgment” in the video, California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”

Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. Folkenflik reviewed the two tapes himself, along with some NPR colleagues and outsiders like The Blaze’s editor-in-chief Scott Baker and Poynter’s Al Tompkins. They home in on many of the same problems The Blaze pointed out. And they basically come to the same conclusion: the tape is still a problem, but the impression it leaves is different.

“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.”

Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review:

From where might we have learned such a lesson? From video scandals past. Think ACORN and think Shirley Sherrod: job- and organization-crippling scandals in which the media blindly aided and abetted. Note too that O’Keefe is a political point-scorer, and here he is scoring from a soft-target.

We knew all of this, and yet few of us slowed down. Including the NPR brass.

It is telling that The Blaze was the first to point out O’Keefe’s context-stripping editing and that its report came out two days after O’Keefe’s video release. (And, yes, we at CJR should have been doing just as The Blaze did, searching for the discrepancies they found.) It’s telling because, as The Blaze showed, it takes time to vet a source.

We can only hope that, next time, the order in which this scandal and others like it have unfolded — headlines and drama first; reporting and vetting later — is reversed. Given the pattern that just repeated itself, we’re not optimistic.

The Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) organization also regularly covered O'Keefe's efforts in 2011 and 2012, lamenting how often the details of the purported stings are misreported before being thoroughly investigated:

USA Today has a long piece by Martha Moore about video hoax artist James O’Keefe’s NPR project. The article does a pretty good job of running down the deceptions in O’Keefe’s video. That’s good. This, however, is not:

... The sting’s impact was magnified by the quick dissemination-without-scrutiny that is a hallmark of Internet-driven media.

O’Keefe’s video has nothing to do with muckraking. And please don’t blame the Internet for the fact that journalists apparently can’t be bothered to care whether a source is reliable.

From NBC Nightly News, courtesy of reporter Lisa Myers:

We last saw O’Keefe wearing a fur coat and playing a pimp when he managed to take down the liberal group ACORN.

No we didn’t ... As should be well-known by now, O’Keefe used footage of himself wearing a “pimp” costume in his ACORN videos — but didn’t wear the ridiculous costume during his “undercover stings.” Media accounts acted as though he did, though — it took a lot of effort to get the New York Times to finally admit its errors on this count.

If reporters don’t know these facts, they’re bound to get fooled by O’Keefe again.

After his fraudulent ACORN videos, the lesson media should have learned about right-wing “citizen journalist” James O’Keefe is not to trust him. But they didn’t, so here we are with his NPR stunt, which allegedly shows NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller saying mean things about the Tea Party in a meeting with phony Muslim Brotherhood-connected donors.

But it appears that, once again, O’Keefe’s videos are not be what they seem. The first serious questions about them were raised on (I swear!) The Blaze, a Glenn Beck-affiliated website. Over there, Scott Baker pointed to a few problems. In one part of the video, NPR‘s Schiller seems to laugh about the phony Muslim group’s position on Sharia law. Baker says it’s out of context.

NPR has done at least two reports on the video. It’s not quite a Shirley Sherrod moment — where the right-wing video was edited to totally turn her message around — but it’s clear that things aren’t exactly what they first seemed. O’Keefe’s history should give media outlets serious reservations about taking him at face value on anything ... which goes to show you that the argument that the media is tilted to the left remains totally unconvincing.

As Exhibit A, look at James O’Keefe, who famously and proudly passed off his partner as a prostitute while secretly videotaping ACORN staffers. Who in the debate over O’Keefe’s work took the position that because the colleague was not actually a prostitute, the entire project was unethical and therefore all of his videotapes should be ignored? The actual objection to O’Keefe’s work was that he deceived the public — misleadingly editing his footage to create false impressions, including the popular delusion that O’Keefe had gone into ACORN offices wearing an outlandish Superfly costume. Nevertheless, he got overwhelmingly positive coverage from right-wing and centrist news outlets alike, with the result that his mendacious reporting had the successful result of helping to bring ACORN down.

In a 2011 op-ed, a Washington Post writer laid out the reasons why videos released by Project Veritas should initially sound numerous ethical alarms:

It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie.

Interest in the four current Project Veritas videos has run high on social media. Politico addressed them from the perspective of legality, such as whether Project Veritas violated the law in Florida by ostensibly not adhering to the state's wiretapping laws. The article also included a statement from Florida State Democratic Party spokesman Max Steele regarding the allegations about voter registrations:

According to Max Steele, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party, Mao or anyone else would lose their jobs for destroying voter-registration forms.

"Sexual assault and harassment, and destruction of voter registration forms, are serious offenses,” Steele said in a written statement. “There is no question that a staff member who engaged in this kind of behavior would be immediately terminated, and we are investigating the claims. Remarks like these do not represent the Florida Democratic Party and are completely inappropriate."

The video neither shows nor alleges that anyone affiliated with Clinton’s campaign actually destroyed any forms. Florida Democrats are surpassing Republicans in signing up voters. The state party has submitted 503,000 voter registration forms for this election; the state Republican Party only 60,000. The Florida Democratic Party said it trains volunteers on proper handling of the registration forms and tracks the documents to make sure none is destroyed in violation of state law.

Under state law, a “person may not knowingly destroy, mutilate, or deface a voter registration form or election ballot or obstruct or delay the delivery of a voter registration form or election ballot.” The third-degree felony carries a maximum five-year-prison term and $5,000 fine.

However, the video itself could constitute a third-degree felony on the part of Project Veritas because of Florida’s law that requires consent before someone is recorded. A person must give explicit consent or give “implied consent” by continuing to talk after being told he or she is being recorded.

As the piece noted, the "rigging" clip and claims of voter registration form destruction did not stem from activity surreptitiously recorded by Project Veritas. Instead, the viral video simply depicts an operative of the organization attempting to bait campaign workers into "admitting" they would tolerate such behavior. And as with the video involving Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin, what Project Veritas' targets appeared to be doing was going along with leading questions rather than disputing them.

Schulkin himself provided comment to that effect, telling the New York Post that he had played along with a young woman he described as a "nuisance":

The videographer asked point-blank, “You think they should have voter ID in New York?”

Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”

Schulkin defended his videotaped remarks, with slight revisions.

“I should have said ‘potential fraud’ instead of ‘fraud,’” he said.

But he reiterated his support for a voter ID requirement.

He recalled a woman asking him a lot of questions the night he was recorded.

“She was like a nuisance. I was just trying to placate her,” he said.

The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). A May 2016 New Yorker article about that aborted sting examined the forces behind Project Veritas and the diminishing impact of deceptive videos:

Many O’Keefe operations, however, have fallen flat, including his repeated efforts to prove that voter-identity fraud is pervasive. “It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. A sting aimed at Hillary Clinton was considered especially feeble. Veritas operatives persuaded a staffer at a rally to accept a Canadian citizen’s money in exchange for a Hillary T-shirt — a petty violation of the ban on foreign political contributions. Brian Fallon, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, says, “Project Veritas has been repeatedly caught trying to commit fraud, falsify identities, and break campaign-finance law. It is not surprising, given that their founder has already been convicted for efforts like this.”

It may be that the shock value of such exposés is diminishing. A recent series of sting videos against Planned Parenthood, created by a group called the Center for Medical Progress, involved deceptions so devious — including an attempt by undercover operatives to buy fetal tissue — that the campaign backfired. Pro-choice activists united in anger at the sting’s perpetrators, and a Texas grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing and indicted the C.M.P.

Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage
absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

Originally published: 18 October 2016

icon-sources.gifsources:

Campanile, Carl.   "Elections Official Caught on Video Blasting de Blasio’s ID Program."
    New York Post.   11 October 2016.

Hammer, David.   "ACORN 'Gotcha' Man Arrested in Attempt to Tamper With Mary Landrieu's Office Phones."
    The Times-Picayune.   26 January 2010.

Hart, Peter.   "Blaming the Internet for Reporters’ Gullibility."
    FAIR.   17 March 2011.

Hart, Peter.   "NBC Still Doesn’t Know About O’Keefe’s ACORN Hoax."
    FAIR.   15 March 2011.

Hart, Peter.   "NPR Unstung? Once Again, O’Keefe Shows He Shouldn’t Be Trusted."
    FAIR.   14 March 2011.

Gerson, Michael.   "The NPR Video and Political Dirty Tricks."
    The Washington Post.   17 March 2011.

Mayer, Jane.   "Sting of Myself."
    The New Yorker.   30 May 2016.

Meares, Joel.   "O’Keefe Teaches Media a Lesson (Again)."
    Columbia Journalism Review.   15 March 2011.

Naureckas, Jim.   "Media’s Weird Ethics: Pretending to Be Someone Else Is Worse Than Facilitating Global Catastrophe."
    FAIR.   22 February 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
‎Today, ‎October ‎26, ‎2016, ‏‎2 minutes ago
 

Matthew Fisher: An election Americans just want to get over

 
‎Today, ‎October ‎26, ‎2016, ‏‎2 minutes ago | Matthew Fisher7

WASHINGTON — Caught in the perpetual morning gridlock on the Beltway, it was easy to spot the sign stuck in the back window of a big SUV with mugshots of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the word, “Really?”

That not-so-cryptic poster summarizes the quandary American voters face Nov. 8.

There is a morbid fascination with and sense of dread about this presidential election that is particularly acute in Washington, where parsing politics is an obsession. An openly expressed fear is that it may be the opening battle in a long, divisive war between progressives and other Americans who bitterly oppose each other on almost every significant issue, but especially on social issues.

It is a door that was thrown wide open when Trump equivocated when asked last week whether he would respect the will of the people if they did not choose him as their president.

“I am sure that the government is keeping a close watch on this, but if Hillary is elected I think that there is a good chance of civil war,” says Ruben Kahvedjian, 36, who runs the Rolling Brick, one of Washington’s many food trucks. “There will be many right-wing Teabaggers starting their own militias to topple her. I don’t put it past these rednecks to take up arms and head to Capitol Hill or to the White House.”

To an outsider such talk sounds fantastic and implausible. But Kahvedjian was not unique when he offered this almost hyperbolic opinion in a comfortable part of Silver Spring, Md. It found its echo 20 kilometres away in Alexandria, Va., which is another bedroom community where many of those who run Washington’s immense bureaucracy live.

“It is the people who hate the government that scare me. They are so angry, I fear violence,” says Maureen Kaser, who teaches children with medical disabilities or discipline problems in Alexandria. “They hate the football player who kneeled for the anthem. They hate the Department of Education. They hate the Environmental Protection Agency.

“I see people on Facebook who are truly worried about the potential for violence. These are passionate people. What are they going to do? We just want to get this over and have a quiet transition.”

Back in Maryland, Joanna Kahvedjian, who works with her husband in the family food business, cites a recent poll that found that only 43 per cent of Americans have confidence in the fairness of their political system. She says Trump is encouraging such thinking by claiming the vote could be rigged against him. “There will be a lot of unhappy people after the election,” she predicts.

Underlining how overwhelmingly negative sentiment is about both presidential candidates, there are almost no Clinton or Trump lawn signs in either the prosperous or the hardscrabble residential areas that ring Washington.

There was a bloody war going on that was to leave 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam. We should remember that we managed to somehow survive all that. We will survive this

“In every other year there would be signs up a few feet from each other in every yard. Now you can go blocks and blocks without seeing a single sign,” says Kaser. “People are reluctant to shout out who they are going to vote for. And they are not excited to vote.

“I used to wear John Kerry earrings. I can’t do that for Clinton because people will attack me, saying she is a liar.”

Joanna Kahvedjian is from a heavily Republican family of 16 children from Wisconsin. Although she long ago switched her allegiance to the Democratic Party, when canvassers came to her door recently and asked to put a Clinton sign on her lawn, she suggested they try their luck with her neighbours.

“Voters are indifferent to these two candidates,” says retired career diplomat David Jones over lunch a few blocks away from the White House. “Both candidates are preternaturally unpopular and Trump more so. They are probably the two most unpopular candidates in our history.

“It is fascinating to me that Trump remains close in the popular vote. But Clinton has a stranglehold on the Electoral College and will win.”

Jones, a Republican who served as a political counsellor at the U.S. embassy in Ottawa during the 1990s, denounced Clinton for having nothing to say “to straight white male voters,” and the Democrats for not looking closely at the problems her candidacy presented, “which allowed Bernie Sanders to come out of nowhere.” Still, he was far more critical of Trump, calling him “a racist, a sexist, a bigot and a bully.7

“Trump insulted John McCain by calling him a coward for being taken prisoner by the Vietnamese, when he could not have even pulled McCain’s boots on. In another era, McCain would have called Trump out for a duel and shot him.”

For all the apocalyptic commentary and sentiment swirling around this election, Jones says Americans have to keep their current predicament in perspective.

“We are constantly hearing how horrible the situation is today, and it is true that what happens next is the lump in the anaconda, because the country has swallowed so much lately. But remember that in 1968 Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. There were riots in Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington and Chicago. The country was burning. There was a bloody war going on that was to leave 58,000 dead Americans in Vietnam. We should remember that we managed to somehow survive all that. We will survive this.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boestar

boestar

Posted
Posted

As soon as anyone giving a political speech about a governmental election or any other government related speech and starts using terms like Christian and religion.  I turn that off.  There is NO PLACE for religious debate in government.  Religion is a freedom that is guaranteed by the constitution period.  Having a government that forces the religious beliefs of a single party on all of the people in a country is WRONG.  Religion has no place to play in governmental affairs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaydee

Jaydee

Posted
Posted

Just out...

"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote the chairmen. "I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...