-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Catogrande said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Yeah, you make a valid point Baron, but we've all know some guy who just talks bollocks all the time and it gets to the stage where you really don't want to listen to his load of bollocks again and avoid him. There must surely come a time when it is valid to criticise something due to the source because that is evidential?
It is evidence that he talks a lot of crap, not that he is always wrong. If the 'bullshit talker' said 2 + 2 = 4.. and the response by anther retard was.. nah it doesn't because you believe in chem trails, homeopathy and clairvoyance ... which one is the retard? Both?
Well seeing as you have already labelled them both retards, quite likely. But another way of looking at it is that the first idiot that eventually comes up with 2+2=4 is still an idiot who just happened to get something right. The second person who ridicules an obviously correct statement due to the idiot's previos history is just being lazy. However if the first idiot said something other than2+2=4 that seems highly speculative and stupid then it is quite rational for the second person to dismiss this. The alternative is we continue to give proven idiots airtime.
-
I am quite surprised no one has commented on the James O'Keefe undercover video.
(DNC purposely contracting various groups incited violence at Trump rallies all through the year to give the impression that Trump supporters were violent)This is corrupt as shit isn't it?
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? -
From 9:13 - these are the current allegation/revelations from Wikileaks. (and granted this is Fox) leveled at Clinton. They are all newsworthy. Instead we get virtually 24/7 calculated smearing of Trump. And it is calculated.
If Trump had these - would they be ignored by the mainstream press outside of Fox
Does anyone give a fuck? -
@Frank not exactly earth shattering. Leftards and union types always seem to be able to get a braying mob together at short notice to rant aggressively about shit they know next to nothing about. See the anti tppa fucktards as a local example of this.
The reason people on the other side of politics are less prone to such behaviour is the fact that we have jobs and subsidise the existence of those workshy ferals.
-
o'keefe is a political activist, with a record of secretly recording and selectively editing video of employees to pursue an agenda or try to entrap people. he's not a journalist.
how on earth can fox news use the phrase 'mainstream media' pejoratively. bizarre. -
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
I am quite surprised no one has commented on the James O'Keefe undercover video.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?The problem is O'Keefe is dirty, and a proven liar, who has manipulated video in the past & got caught.
A few years back he had this great video of a charity doing shadey shit, the charity (to help low income people) had its funding pulled, went under, there was a major investigation to go after the charity, which then discovered that O'Keefe had doctored everything, cut the video etc.. and not one person at the charity had done anything.
So O'Keefe got famous as an investigative journo crusader (helped by.. of all people Andrew Brietbart) & a year later when it was revelaled he lied no one cared. Apart from all the low income families that had lost the support of the charity, or the workers that had been fired & spent a year under investigation.
So, shockingly, O'Keefe reveals are not treated with quite the respect you'd hope...
I liked trhis one tho -
In August 2014, O'Keefe dressed up as Osama bin Laden and crossed the U.S-Mexico border in Texas in both directions to "show that our elected officials were lying to the American people" about the border being secure. He was later cited by U.S. Senator John McCain in Congressional hearings
He's basically Borat.
-
No that is absolutely fucked. The campaign is alleged to not only have organised violence at a rivals campaign but also organise deniability.
That is just wrong. There is no way on earth that this should not be investigated widely by the media.Staggers me that so many people are prepared to let things slide just because they hate Trump so much.
The double standards are amazing.
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
If Trump had these - would they be ignored by the mainstream press outside of Fox
Does anyone give a fuck?Again, they are not. It's Trump policy to say it over & over, but is a lie. And such an easily proven lie you literally have to be a lobotomised gibbon to buy it.
Heres the US newspapers by size -
WSJ, number one - BSG has already linked to thats, the biggest paper in the US has this as its top story this week.
NYT (no. 2)
USA Today (no. 3)
Etc, right the way down. This is front page news in EVERY SINGLE ONE of the top 10 papers in the states. All of them.
Note, I'm only posting 1 link per paper there cause "NYT Podesta" brings up about 3000 hits , but you get the picture, and I'm sure you can use google news yourself
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Both have far more negative and emotive opinion pieces on Trump than Clinton.
Hang on, I thought your (and Trumps) arguement was it was being ignored? So now we have the no. 1 newspaper in the country leading with it, the no. 1 cable news channel leading with it & every other news source covering it...
But you know, not quite enough.
And not more than a Pres candidate with a history of sexual assault..
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Gollum
Yes, wrong to say it has been ignored.
But...compare the amount of coverage of it compared to Trump's alleged sexual misadventures.
No contest my friend.And you'd have to be a lobotomized gibbon not to see that.....
That's probably not so much a conspiracy, rather that stories of Clinton's dealings create far less interest (and therefore revenue) than Trump's antics. He loves publicity and the media now love him, all the way to the bank
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Both have far more negative and emotive opinion pieces on Trump than Clinton.
Hang on, I thought your (and Trumps) arguement was it was being ignored? So now we have the no. 1 newspaper in the country leading with it, the no. 1 cable news channel leading with it & every other news source covering it...
But you know, not quite enough.
And not more than a Pres candidate with a history of sexual assault..
Hang on there Gollum, it is every poster's god given right to shift the goalposts!!
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
I am quite surprised no one has commented on the James O'Keefe undercover video.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?The problem is O'Keefe is dirty, and a proven liar, who has manipulated video in the past & got caught.
A few years back he had this great video of a charity doing shadey shit, the charity (to help low income people) had its funding pulled, went under, there was a major investigation to go after the charity, which then discovered that O'Keefe had doctored everything, cut the video etc.. and not one person at the charity had done anything.
So O'Keefe got famous as an investigative journo crusader (helped by.. of all people Andrew Brietbart) & a year later when it was revelaled he lied no one cared. Apart from all the low income families that had lost the support of the charity, or the workers that had been fired & spent a year under investigation.
So, shockingly, O'Keefe reveals are not treated with quite the respect you'd hope...
I liked trhis one tho -
In August 2014, O'Keefe dressed up as Osama bin Laden and crossed the U.S-Mexico border in Texas in both directions to "show that our elected officials were lying to the American people" about the border being secure. He was later cited by U.S. Senator John McCain in Congressional hearings
He's basically Borat.
Did you actually watch it?
What did you think? -
@canefan said in US Election Thread 2016:
That's probably not so much a conspiracy, rather that stories of Clinton's dealings create far less interest (and therefore revenue) than Trump's antics. He loves publicity and the media now love him, all the way to the bank
Thats the more valid point. People know their polititians are dirty, they've always been dirty, its only news when sex comes into play. Bill Clinton being dirty wasn't that big, Bill getting a blow job was huge. JFKs dad supporting Hitler wasn't that big, JFK fucking Marilyn is still a story. Hell, Cheney fulling cost plus deals Halliburton probably wasn't as good a storey as when he shot a man in the face.
Same here "Clinton close with Goldmans" v "Interview with 10 year old girl Trump promised to fuck in 10 years" is a no brainer for a click driven news industry.
And it goes both ways, a few years back Elliot Spizter (Democrat) was going after wall street in a huge way, really doing some good stuff in terms if cleaning up. Then he fucked a hooker. The corruption re Wall Street was never front page news anyway, but now it REALLY wasn't, not compared to an interview with the hooker...
The doc on that is outstanding -
US Politics