Politics

Topic   The new angle: Collusion is nasty but not a crime.

DiamondDave
GameTZ Subscriber 350 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Has Written 4 Reviews
* 28-Nov-2017(#2)
That's the old angle, they've been mumbling this as soon as the accusations were being taken seriously. If it's our guy, I mean, it's not ILLEGAL. If it's your guy, I mean, throw them in jail. Why aren't they in jail yet?
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
28-Nov-2017(#3)
Well, it's the first time I've seen this in an almost admission type sense. And I'm seeing it many places. Yep, we did it but it's not illegal.
DiamondDave
GameTZ Subscriber 350 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Has Written 4 Reviews
28-Nov-2017(#4)
It's not really an admission. It's like OJ saying "I didn't do it, but if I did it, this is how I would"
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
* 28-Nov-2017(#5)
That's how I see them angling though. And that's probably what's coming- straight admission of what they did do. It's going to work because the base does not care about the integrity of the democratic process. They put political partisanship and party loyalty over most truly American principles.

David Frum has seen this coming for a while- he said months ago this is what they'd do and how we'd all be fine with the tease of tyranny.
DiamondDave
GameTZ Subscriber 350 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Has Written 4 Reviews
28-Nov-2017(#6)
Sadly I think you'll find that's one trait that knows no partisanship. Why do you think Al Franken and John Conyers are so hesitant to toss their seats up amidst these sexual assault allegations? Or why Roy Moore's still in the running even after it's clear he's had a sordid history of diddling kids? It's just so terribly sad.
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
28-Nov-2017(#7)
That's who most of those guys are it seems. Traits of someone who wants that position of power are usually not morally upstanding IMHO.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader This user is on the site NOW (45 seconds ago)
* 28-Nov-2017(#8)
Gotta love the Dersh, one of our coastal elite gang, tells it like he sees it. Thought the comments were fun, one linking Mueller to
helping Hilly "sell yellowcake uranium to our enemies". Priceless!
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
28-Nov-2017(#9)
So on the subject of Roy Moore and fake news, a dude by the last name O'Keefe tried to pull a fast one on WaPo. The plan was to have a fake accuser make allegations about Roy Moore to expose liberal and anti Moore bias in the media. O'Keefe is a conservative activist that beleives the fake news narrative and to prove it he wanted to creatw fake news. It backfired because WaPo does homework and investigsted and it lead right to him when they tried to check the credibility of this womans story. Now I see where the "fake news" people are mentally. Not only do they choose to not believe the media, they want to antagonize it to meet their objectives.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.co...

Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
* 28-Nov-2017(#10)
They want to destroy the media- that whole stunt is really bad for women who really have a story to tell. That also fits their narrative of trying to prove "every woman who accuses has not been assaulted."

The silliest part of it all is that had the stunt worked the non sequitur: that Roy Moore's accuser was lying too, was what they were most likely looking at. Illogical to the point of comedy.

Like a child's bad idea and prank.
ninesalone
GameTZ Subscriber Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (4 minutes ago)
28-Nov-2017(#11)
Feeb wrote:
> They want to destroy the media- that whole stunt is really bad for women who really
> have a story to tell. That also fits their narrative of trying to prove "every woman
> who accuses has not been assaulted."

You sure make a lot of broad, illogical statements. I have no doubt Weinstein, Bill Clinton, and some others are predators. I absolutely believe the women in those cases. Then you have stories that have already fallen apart and clear motives for making claims up that can never be proven or debunked. If you think a yearbook is proof that Roy Moore is a sexual abuser, you are a special kind of stupid. There's a reason they aren't handing it over to a 3rd party.

And just because WaPo uncovered one of Veritas operatives doesn't detract from the point and the work they do. We still haven't seen all that they uncovered, though I'll agree "opinions in the editorial section" is weak sauce. I think the point is Bezos has a lot of say about the direction of the paper. It's undoubtedly a leftist outlet with no interest in covering the president fairly.

I really don't care if O'Keefe has to embarrass himself going at these HUGE corporate propaganda outlets. It is already understood by most that the MSM is mostly an arm of the DNC. The more people understand that, the better off we'll all be. Quite rich seeing people call WaPo the "free press" as if they have journalistic integrity. Sad. Just admit it's a biased outlet.
Osiris
300 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader This user is on the site NOW (45 seconds ago)
28-Nov-2017(#12)
i heard that most believe that Project Veritas is a arm of, and funded by, Russian intelligence agencies! Chit!
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
28-Nov-2017(#13)
@Feeb, your point is true, I agree that the conservative base would like to discredit these women and women in general. Even if it weren't the intention of these people the impact would have been bad for victims. Great point.

@ninesalone your ability to disconnect from your own morality to see your political ideology suceed is astonishing. Where is your redline? You don't care about O'Keefe does as long as he... you don't care/believe any Roy Moore allegations regardless of testimony but have no doubt about Clinton, Weinstein, and Cosby being guilty. You also don't care about the lies, acts, and behavior of the president. But you claim you to be non biased, fair, and balanced and feel that the media is the evil machine. That takes a special kind of stupid.

ninesalone
GameTZ Subscriber Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (4 minutes ago)
* 28-Nov-2017(#14)
Karaiya wrote:

> @ninesalone your ability to disconnect from your own morality to see your political
> ideology suceed is astonishing. Where is your redline? You don't care about O'Keefe
> does as long as he... you don't care/believe any Roy Moore allegations regardless
> of testimony but have no doubt about Clinton, Weinstein, and Cosby being guilty.
> You also don't care about the lies, acts, and behavior of the president. But you
> claim you to be non biased, fair, and balanced and feel that the media is the evil
> machine. That takes a special kind of stupid.

If you think you're going to make some moral case, you're wrong. It's very telling that you and others jump right to this argument instead of providing facts that counter what I'm saying. Also, in Draculas thread I made it clear I'm not buying Franken is some lewd pervert over a joke photo. If you think I'm just picking who to believe and aim outrage at based on partisanship, you're wrong again.

I do not think the media is evil. I think corporate media is biased to the left at varying degrees. Regardless on how you feel or agree with their propaganda, it's a fact.
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
28-Nov-2017(#15)
ninesalone wrote:
> Feeb wrote:
>> They want to destroy the media- that whole stunt is really bad for women who really
>> have a story to tell. That also fits their narrative of trying to prove "every
> woman
>> who accuses has not been assaulted."
>
> You sure make a lot of broad, illogical statements. I have no doubt Weinstein, Bill
> Clinton, and some others are predators. I absolutely believe the women in those cases.
> Then you have stories that have already fallen apart and clear motives for making
> claims up that can never be proven or debunked. If you think a yearbook is proof
> that Roy Moore is a sexual abuser, you are a special kind of stupid. There's a reason
> they aren't handing it over to a 3rd party.
>
> And just because WaPo uncovered one of Veritas operatives doesn't detract from the
> point and the work they do. We still haven't seen all that they uncovered, though
> I'll agree "opinions in the editorial section" is weak sauce. I think the point is
> Bezos has a lot of say about the direction of the paper. It's undoubtedly a leftist
> outlet with no interest in covering the president fairly.
>
> I really don't care if O'Keefe has to embarrass himself going at these HUGE corporate
> propaganda outlets. It is already understood by most that the MSM is mostly an arm
> of the DNC. The more people understand that, the better off we'll all be. Quite rich
> seeing people call WaPo the "free press" as if they have journalistic integrity.
> Sad. Just admit it's a biased outlet.

It is a biased outlet. No one is arguing this- the only thing that illustrates is that they select stories to fit their narrative; this does not equate to being "fake" news. Every news outlet does this or we wouldn't need more than one; it's a business with customers. Some people choose not to eat corn flakes because they triggered a website- they eat something else. Same deal. When you watch Fox News they have ads designed to scare old folks into spending money- it's their demographic. Personally I read all the stories I can from many different angles- I never have difficulty understanding what is concrete, evidence based reporting and what is opinion. I also don't have much difficulty with single source stories, (not the case in some of the Moore stuff- multiple Pulitzer Prize winning journalists were in on that and some other "fake" news favorites) especially when that single source is a leak from inside( ironically seems like you applaud this on the one hand? The rebel who gets the secret out.)

What the story I posted does display is that in a concrete incident this particular paper had done what Reagan recommended: trust but verify.

The difference as I see it is that one side is trying to use the burden of empirically supported, evidence based facts while the other just cries that it's fake and attacks character or reputation.

The same tactics are frequently employed by Trump supporters in most outlets. See your post for a pretty good illustration of this and notice the absence of any concrete support for your stance.
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
28-Nov-2017(#16)
Yes, everyone knows that the news leans a certain way. It always has, it never hasn't taken a lean in history.

Along those lines, the facts I think you want have been provided over and over again to you. You're making a conscientious decision to believe the alternative. Or more specifically believe that the facts, evidence, circumstances, are all made up, fabricated, conspiracy, or lies. That takes effort. Al Franken did something inappropriate. He will be held accountable for that. You're right in believing he is not some pervert. I agree. But his case is in no way equivalent to the afformentioned. Weisntein, Moore, and Cosby are predators. These men allegedly commited serious crimes.

MikeyWhoa
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
28-Nov-2017(#17)
ninesalone wrote:
> Feeb wrote:
>> They want to destroy the media- that whole stunt is really bad for women who really
>> have a story to tell. That also fits their narrative of trying to prove "every
> woman
>> who accuses has not been assaulted."
>
> You sure make a lot of broad, illogical statements. I have no doubt Weinstein, Bill
> Clinton, and some others are predators. I absolutely believe the women in those cases.
> Then you have stories that have already fallen apart and clear motives for making
> claims up that can never be proven or debunked. If you think a yearbook is proof
> that Roy Moore is a sexual abuser, you are a special kind of stupid. There's a reason
> they aren't handing it over to a 3rd party.
>
> And just because WaPo uncovered one of Veritas operatives doesn't detract from the
> point and the work they do. We still haven't seen all that they uncovered, though
> I'll agree "opinions in the editorial section" is weak sauce. I think the point is
> Bezos has a lot of say about the direction of the paper. It's undoubtedly a leftist
> outlet with no interest in covering the president fairly.
>
> I really don't care if O'Keefe has to embarrass himself going at these HUGE corporate
> propaganda outlets. It is already understood by most that the MSM is mostly an arm
> of the DNC. The more people understand that, the better off we'll all be. Quite rich
> seeing people call WaPo the "free press" as if they have journalistic integrity.
> Sad. Just admit it's a biased outlet.


But since the "MSM is an arm of the DNC", and the Trump Foundation has donated money to Project Veritas, does that mean they are state sanctioned media?


ninesalone
GameTZ Subscriber Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (4 minutes ago)
28-Nov-2017(#18)
MikeyWhoa wrote:

> are state sanctioned media?

I actually didn't know about this. Gained a little more respect for the Trump foundation. If you think a $10,000 donation equates to what we're talking about here though... It's an absurd comparison.
DiamondDave
GameTZ Subscriber 350 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Has Written 4 Reviews
* 28-Nov-2017(#19)
Everyone's got a bias, it's a question of if you agree with the bias. You agree with O'Keefe's bias, some people (arguably more/most people) align more with the MSM's bias. You decry the MSM's bias while not even batting an eye at PV/O'Keefe's biases, creative editing practices and failed fabrications.

I'm just saying, if you're wanting everyone else to admit to MSM's bias, you've gotta give a bit and admit you enjoy the Veritas drama, too.
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
28-Nov-2017(#20)
We still like to ignore the fact that Foxnews is the main stream for media that most Americans choose. I believe the triggered parlance for that is "doesn't fit the agenda."
MikeyWhoa
GameTZ Subscriber Double Gold Good Trader
28-Nov-2017(#21)
Feeb wrote:
> We still like to ignore the fact that Foxnews is the main stream for media that most
> Americans choose. I believe the triggered parlance for that is "doesn't fit the agenda."


This. Always happy to talk about how they are the #1 news network and that their ratings are better then everyone else's. But when it comes to information being misused, it the news that nobody watches that shapes the feeble-minded.


Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
* 28-Nov-2017(#22)
I think we are using a lot of dialogue to tell you that you're argument is hypocrisy.
DiamondDave
GameTZ Subscriber 350 Trade Quintuple Gold Good Trader Has Written 4 Reviews
* 28-Nov-2017(#23)
The one thing CNN and Veritas have in common is that they're selling you a product, something both O'Keefe and the CNN execs have repeatedly admitted and said aloud in unambiguous terminology.

Some people feel a smug satisfaction by primarily consuming content exclusively through "alternative" news sources, but everyone pulls the same bullcrap. Smart people acknowledge this and aggregate their data from multiple sources and come to their own conclusions. Not smart people mock everyone else's crap, without acknowledging the crap they're holding onto while they do it.

CNN stages a shot, O'Keefe does some selective editing. WaPo slants their coverage and , Veritas injects foul play elements that sometimes reveals bad players and sometimes makes O'Keefe look retarded for crying wolf when there isn't one to be found. Breitbart links wildfires to Samoan refugees where there are no links. You think anyone's innocent in this multimedia crapshow? Breitbart's got a Fake News tally over a dozen and a half articles this year alone, if I recall correctly.

If you're under the impression that you can unconditionally trust the person telling you unconditionally cannot trust the mainstream media you're missing the entire point of this coverage: You can't trust anyone. You need to stay vigilant and stay educated. You don't write your school papers using one book if you hope to get a good grade when you turn it in, you get as many sources as you can, lift the useful parts and move along.
ninesalone
GameTZ Subscriber Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (4 minutes ago)
* 28-Nov-2017(#24)
Well said.

There are so many sources from both sides to choose from. There is no reason left to go to these dinosaur media companies anymore. People should absorb news from both sides and make up their own minds. EVERYONE has a bias. Direct your clicks and dollars to those outlets honest about theirs.

I think the only people left that throw their trust to these irrelevant corporate entities are older folks who haven't adjusted to new platforms (fox viewers) and mainly folks on the left that don't want to see their power to set the narrative go.

Sam wasn't the only person I bet during the election and it was easy to find takers at the time because trust in the media was a bit higher. Pocketed over 300 dollars and was owed a few dinners after he won. Many of these folks I bet (on both sides) have completely abandoned cable news since and now are avid listeners of podcasts and other alternative media online. Once Trump wins re-election perhaps the rest of the stragglers will get the message that they are being played and the MSM will lose what little power it has left.

When Roy Moore wins perhaps they will realize they can't just parade out "victims" to ruin someone's campaign. Slowly, they will lose all the tools they've used to manipulate.
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
* 28-Nov-2017(#25)
Another fake news idea. Trump's victory was inside the margin of error in most polls. This is a misunderstanding of statistics and polling more than MSM lying to anyone. They report what they get from the data. His odds of winning were around 20% two days before the election. That's 1/5. As in it could very well happen. People newer to elections and politics always think there's a "revolution" when a poll is misunderstood. You don't think sports are fake when an underdog wins do you?

The Roy Moore thing just proves further that politicians are politicians and peons are peons.

These are arguments from prejudice not from reasoning.
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
28-Nov-2017(#26)
Karaiya wrote:
> I think we are using a lot of dialogue to tell you that you're argument is hypocrisy.

As breitbart continuously touts polls showing Moore in the lead and links CNN stories on their front page. It's clear they don't condone "practicing what you preach."
Karaiya
Gold Good Trader Has Written 1 Review
29-Nov-2017(#27)
Roy Moore will win but even the media outlets that are reporting on him negatively already know that. Most of the news from Alabama is that they'd rather vote for him than a Democrat. Unfortunate but true. I'll be suprised if he didn't win. Not sute if yhe senate would actually expel him either.
Feeb
GameTZ Subscriber Triple Gold Good Trader Global Trader - willing to trade internationally This user is on the site NOW (8 minutes ago)
29-Nov-2017(#28)
The whole spin is that the yearbook signature is fake from one side and that it will only be examined as a formality in a hearing under oath on the other.

The hope is that either the book goes away / is proven fake or Moore is forced to testify under oath. I suspect he will be forced to testify win or lose.

Topic   The new angle: Collusion is nasty but not a crime.