from the where's-a-muckraker-when-you-need-one? dept.
Okay, so, I wasn't going to submit these here because I've really had quite enough of politics for the year but it seems the mainstream media are having an absolute blackout on anything critical of Hillary, to the point of CNN has both coincidentally lost a sitting congressman's satellite feed immediately after mentioning wikileaks and tried to tell their viewers that even reading the wikileaks emails is illegal.
These two videos by Project Veritas Action, apparently with more to come, are the result of a year or so of actual investigative journalism and deserve coverage somewhere though. I don't personally care at all if you like Hillary or not but it's always better to know the truth than to stick your head in the sand, so here they are.
The first part in the series is titled Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies. It basically shows precisely what it says it does. Hidden cameras capture Scott Foval of Americans United for Change not so much admitting as bragging that they have operatives in numerous major cities that are actually trained in how best to incite violence at Trump rallies.
The second part of the series is again aptly titled Mass Voter Fraud. In this video Scott Foval is again captured going into minute detail on how not only go commit mass voter fraud but how to get away with it.
Scott Foval and Robert Creamer (also in the videos) are currently unemployed as a result of these videos. Whether Mrs. Clinton should be as well, that's for you to decide.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:14AM
Not so much an op-ed as me giving a shot at fulfilling our mandate of promoting good journalism on the rare occasion that we actually find some.
I'll leave the arguing about it to you lot though. I'm going fishing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:31AM
After all that editorializing, "oh by the way, I have no dog in this fight" - disingenuous lying prick.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:37AM
Get a clue, fanboi.
My personal stance on this election is that we're fucked either way. The MSM, however, has everything Trump has ever said, done, or thought covered with a microscope while refusing to publish anything even remotely critical of Clinton.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:55AM
The mainstream media now includes Facebook and Twitter, in my opinion. A complication is that you can and do get banned there for posting material disfavorable to certain candidates, or for that matter discussing certain topics. It seems an easy way to get shadow-banned for a short while on Twitter is to criticize Clinton, as one example. Social media is really heavily curated to prevent some issues from rising to the top. It is not a communications medium and those relying on it or even playing too deeply with it become misinformed.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:18PM
Interesting opinion. The state of the voting population is pretty bad if anyone is getting their news from Facebook and Twitter. If they don't know that FB and T are under no obligation to provide a channel to anyone and are free to control what they publish, those who use them for news are the problem.
Refresher to possibly head off the free speech comments:
First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:25PM
Agreed. However, if your phone company (also not limited by the First Amendment) started dropping your calls whenever you started talking about a given subject (or simply dropping the recipient while keeping your side connected, ala shadow-banning), you might then understand why FB and T users are upset over their treatment by said companies. Apparently, the youngsters nowadays use FB and T much like we creaky longbeards used telephone and email back in the day.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Oakenshield on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:45PM
For certain values of the term "youngster" this may be true. Around my neck of the woods, "youngsters" use Snapchat and Instagram. Facebook is what parents use to tell other parents what they ate for dinner and where they went after work last night. Twitter is where Kardashian obsessives go for their fixes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:52PM
The phone company can't because they'd lose common carrier status.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:58PM
They certainly could; it's not a requirement that the phone company remain a common carrier. However, it is quite unlikely the phone company would choose to censor communications.
None of which even challenges my primary point that people get understandably upset when their communications are censored.
(Score: 3, Informative) by canopic jug on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:27PM
The state of the voting population is pretty bad if anyone is getting their news from Facebook and Twitte
Truly. And it's worse that most people realize. Millennials and X-ers get most of their "news" from Facebook [journalism.org], or at least they believe what they are getting is news. It is rather insidious because while it is heavily curated towards particular inclinations, the useds on it believe they are getting unfiltered information.
Broadcast media aren't much better. Most in the US only get a single TV station and one or two radio stations, those being Faux News or Cumulus or Clear Channel...
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:40PM
or at least they believe what they are getting is news. It is rather insidious because while it is heavily curated towards particular inclinations, the useds on it believe they are getting unfiltered information.
This is really important, and the filter bubble [wikipedia.org] effect a likely major contributor to the increasing polarization of politics in the U.S. People have always gravitated toward news sources that seem to agree with them, whether they subscribed to some radical newsletter back in the day, or listened to conservative talk radio, or whatever. But at least most of the time the ideological slant was clear in those things -- you may have thought Rush Limbaugh was the best source of news and commentary, but you also knew you were deliberately seeking out a more conservative news source. This became easier to do with the rise of blogs and curated internet news sources, where people could choose to live inside their "bubble" and only read news from things that agreed with them.
But Facebook is SO much more insidious than all of that, because users are completely unaware of how much filtering may (or may not) be going on to "personalize" their experience. Same thing with Google searches. I first noticed personally back in 2012 when I was interested in the whole Ron Paul fiasco and the Republican Party's reaction to it. I wasn't really a Paul supporter, but I was somewhat disturbed by the way the whole thing was handled, so I'd search for "Ron Paul" every few days to see what was going on. Soon, Google News started showing me a lot more links to news about Ron Paul... which at first I took to mean that he was getting more national attention or something. But then I compared it to a friends' results, and I discovered that no -- Google was just showing me what I wanted. But for a diehard Ron Paul supporter, this could be incredibly misleading. Thus, it doesn't surprise me at all when you encounter people who have completely weird perspectives on their favorite candidate or whatever -- why not? Their news sources seem to tell them that they are correct!
This is actually the truly disturbing aspect of Facebook's data collection/ad revenue scheme. We can't know all the details of Facebook's algorithm, since it wants to keep it secret to make profits. But in the course of doing so, they are actually altering "reality" for people by selectively feeding them stuff without letting them know how it may be biased. I have no problem with a customized news feed or whatever, but when you can't even find out how exactly your "news" is being tampered with... that's profoundly disturbing.
(And for those who would argue that our news is always "tampered with" by journalist/editorial/whatever bias, I agree to some extent. But the potential for unintended "feedback loops" now is much greater and thus potentially much more divisive.)
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday October 21 2016, @04:16PM
By somewhat-related coincidence, I was talking to a funeral director today who uses Facebook to advertise her business; she told me she kept seeing any amount of suggestions that she should be looking at celebrity gossip, but nothing more appropriate to her line of work and no suggestions to 'friend' people she hadn't seen in years. I get a fair bit of the latter (why not say hello to that arsehole who bullied your brother in school?), plus every time I look at that site on my phone I get an invitation to 'friend' Zuckerberg. I've never met the man!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:38PM
Millennials and X-ers get most of their "news" from Facebook [journalism.org]
I get what you're saying, and I think a lot of old people underestimate how much young people rely on social media for news. I wouldn't be incredibly surprised if your statement was true, but it isn't backed up by your link. Your link is showing that Facebook has a wider reach for that demographic than any of the other news sources measured, not that it is the source they get the most news from. Note that the percentages in the poll add up to well over 100%. If a group of 10 people each read 1 story a week from Facebook, and 20 stories another news source (that varied from person to person), Facebook would still be the most popular news source by the metric used even though there would be 10 other news sources that each provided twice as much news as Facebook.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:47PM
In fact, reading further, they actually list the sources that Millenials cite as their main source of political news* and Facebook doens't make the short list: CNN (21%), Local TV (10%), Fox News (8%), Google News (7%), Yahoo News (7%).
*The entire scope of the polls being discussed is political news, not news in general, so this isn't a switch-and-bait.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:39PM
Broadcast media aren't much better. Most in the US only get a single TV station...
It's certainly no better where I am, pretty but vacant idiots reading propaganda off autocues.
I counted three mispronunciations of either place names or people's names on the most popular 6 o'clock news broadcast in New Zealand last night.
The news bulletin was followed by a couple of gurning fools blathering about how awful Trump is for another 30 minutes or so. I watched some of it out of total disbelief at how balance has disappeared from our air waves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:39PM
Don't remember if I've ever heard where you are from, Weeds. But, the state of the US electorate is sad indeed. Note that important issues are on the back burner, and have been for half a century, while unimportant crap like gay marriage commanded front page attention for almost a decade.
Note that congress continues to abdicate authority to corporations in the form of "trade agreements". The electorate doesn't have a clue that our elected officials are pissing away our sovereignty.
Note that our current choice for president are a clown and a murderous theif. Again, the electorate hasn't a clue.
And, as you mention, damned near no one has a clue that FB and T capitalize on each and every user, while working hard to shape opinion.
I first heard the term "social engineering" with respect to Kellog pushing breakfast cereals a hundred years or more ago. Today, the great-great grandchildren of that generation clamors to be engineered again.
It's crazy - just crazy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:59AM
Why go for a Left nut or a Right nut when you can have the Johnson?
Your sig says you endorse the prick.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:43PM
And? He has no chance of winning short of both candidates and their veep choices being hit by meteors, so it makes fuck-all difference to me whether the criminal or the dipshit wins.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:25PM
I'm so disappointed. I thought you were only referring to your genitals. A double entendre? Sigh.
This is a sad day for me. I'm going to go get drunk and cry a little.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:47PM
That'll be a lot of people on election day!
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 1) by driven on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:33PM
Unfortunately for Trump he's said such outlandish things that he's got people shaming others for considering to vote for him. "don't you have a daughter or a mother? shame on you for promoting Trump". I don't even know why MSM even mentions Trump's name. Just stop the charade, yank everyone but Clinton from television and have a 24 hour scrolling "vote Hillary" banner at the bottom of the screen. And then you've got a 3rd place candidate who I recall seeing somewhere with 8% support - that's not worth talking about on TV when you have two misfits in the top two spots? I mean, MSM is doing what should be considered a criminal job of their election coverage.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:02PM
But do you think any of that would matter if the entire broadcast and cable media weren't tripping over themselves to kiss Hillary's ring? I mean you had several cases where Bernie's votes actually ran backwards in key counties during the DNC primary, you have a pile of emails where members of the DNC talk about how to fuck the guy over, you have Hillary LYING UNDER OATH to both the FBI and congress, oh and the head of the FBI pretending he doesn't know what the word negligence means.... and the mainstream media has completely ignored everything while looking for anything Trump might have possibly said to someone sometime in his past that looks bad.
At this point it isn't even House Of Cards level manipulation, its "who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" levels of just blatant propaganda. Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally did more honest reporting in WWII than the major media outlets in the USA did in 2016.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:23PM
There's also the recent digging by Reddit into DNC/Clinton people trying to frame Assange for pedophelia. There's an awful lot of corruption being ignored by the media.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:47PM
There's an awful lot of corruption by the media being ignored.
FTFY
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:50PM
Also very true.
(Score: 1) by driven on Friday October 21 2016, @02:59AM
Here's an interesting video on how US presidential debates work. No follow-up questions allowed, pre-selected moderators, and a binding agreement covering what is allowed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NXhoP5bQ2M [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:34PM
Because the information is not widely spread through the population. The various channels of news that the vast majority of the people are tuned into are controlled! With the signal to noise ratio, along with bullshit news stories, people might hear of some things and be outraged but then it disappears into the noise. Also, we have no outlet for action that can possibly make an immediate difference (for most people).
I think the best way forward is to develop decentralized communications channels, and promote journalism through viewership (this can take multiple forms). With other avenues, such as basic income, people would be much more easily freed to pursue their interests, and we would probably see an explosion of citizen reporting. Just like we have seen on the various social media platforms, except decentralized which means you only share a unique hash (or whatever) to access content and there is no central authority which can filter it out.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:45PM
How EXACTLY is this flamebait? You have one major media outlet trying so desperately to cover for Clinton they told the American public that even reading the leaked emails was illegal, you have several of those emails where high ranking members of the HRC campaign and members of the DNC talk about writing pieces for major news outlet reporters who would then just sign their name, you have an actual fucking election commissioner in a battleground state no less talking about busing in illegals to swing elections and the Washington Times reporting multiple cases of serious voter fraud [washingtontimes.com] and the big media networks not only ignore it but actually tear into Trump for pointing out that this shit is going on! Fuck I don't give a shit who you vote for, this entire thing stinks!
At this point I have no doubt if a video came out of Hillary holding down a woman for Bill to rape you'd have most of the major media reporting "But but but....Trump said ASSHOLE on the Apprentice in 1998, we have the video!". Never in my life have I seen the media so blatantly covering for one side in an election, at this point it isn't reporting....its shilling.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:20PM
Hyperbole and hot air from Hairryfeet, who woulda thunk.
Lets look at your times article, which as a source is just as biased as any left leaning source BTW.
1. "Multiple incidents" Well the jury is out on this but how many is multiple, it doesnt sound like enough to sway the balance.
2. 1046 illegals registered to vote and were caught on accident. This one is a bit more worrisome, lets look into it and see how many there really are.
3. More then 700 voters voted twice. Checking this one out further it looks like a bunch of old people voted and sent in absentee ballots. Doesn't look like a concerted effort to sway the vote to me.
4. A whopping 86 noncitizens registered to vote, and half of them actually voted last time. Again not a concerted effort. And not enough to sway the election of a dog catcher.
5. This one is total BS
131 involved witnesses. Of those 131, five people witnessed more than one mail-in ballot. Four of those five people witnessed requests from multiple family members, which is allowed. One apparently witnessed five applications from the same address, a nursing home or a retirement center.
Yes thats right they are calling one employee witnissing multiple elderly voters as voter fraud. Holy smokes you guys are digging deep to find this fraud. Thats a MISTAKE, not fraud.
6. More hot air
Police believe there could be hundreds of fraudulent voter registration records
"Hundreds" Oooh thats what will steal the presidency from Trump.
7. Three. Your evidence for widespread fraud is THREE cases of voting twice in the primary.
8. This isn't even voter fraud, this is an angry guy yelling at poll workers.
Keith Justice, 50, has been charged with four counts of intimidating an election officer and one count of interfering with an election officer in Pike County.
This one doesn't even give a link for more info. It was prob a n angry old white guy, guess whos demographic that is.
9 6 17 year old students voted underage. OOOOOOO There is your big fraud case.
10
In September, the secretary of state’s office in Pennsylvania mailed about 2.5 million voter registration postcards to people who are not registered voters, but are licensed drivers.
Thats not fraud, it may enable fraud but its the states own fault, and they could fix it by mailing new voter registration cards to all the voters that look markedly different and educate the poll workers on what a valid one looks like. You only have the old card, then you get a provissional ballot.
TLDR: Your source is BS, your point is wrong, and you have made up your mind not by looking at the facts but by deciding what is happening and searching for evidence to prove it. You should be just as ashamed for voting for trump as anyone that votes for HRC. Giant Meteor 2016!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:38PM
Giant meteor indeed... but one that strategically takes out just Washington, or just takes out the contiguous United States (or breaks apart and JUST takes out Trump, Hillary, Pence and Kaine).
Vote for Baldrick!
http://i2.wp.com/eveningharold.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Baldrick.jpg [wp.com]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:19PM
You can borrow my sig if you want.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday October 21 2016, @02:04AM
I'm guessing Baldrick could manage that: I hear he has a 'cunning plan'! ;)
It involves turnips and WMD: so.... turnips.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:48PM
You didn't watch the videos in the article, obviously. It has multiple members of an organization that works for both Hillary and the DNC bragging about and explaining how to commit election fraud on a massive scale. On camera. From their own mouths.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:07PM
Well I was replying to hariy feet's post. I have not watched the videos, watching videos at work is a no no. Yet you don't address my post or the fact that the top ten voter fraud cases listed are at best very weak to make your point with. Heck a couple of them don't look like voter fraud at all, there are mistakes with mail in ballots (usually mailed in by elderly, so they most likely don't favor the dems) there is a mistake with a witness witnessing too many votes, why is this a problem? There is the state screwing up and sending the wrong people voter registrations. There is the angry old white guy intimidating poll workers (yes angry old white guy is so much a hillary fan). There is the case of six 17 year olds voting. I mean come on here. Get evidence of some REAL voter fraud and cough it up to the relevant police department, or shut the heck up with this weak sauce innuendo.
Maybe your videos have some grand evidence in them but judging from the likes of breitbart I wouldn't be surprised if they were edited to make them look bad, and I would not be surprised if they were faked altogether (note: like I said I haven't seen them) Cause if they were legit, why have there been no charges filed or police investigations. I mean if the police are going to investigate THREE instances of duplicate voting, I feel they would likely investigate fraud on the scale that would tip the balance of the election. So either the evidence is weaker then you and the video author claim, or its faked. But thats ok, you've made up your mind and no amount of common sense or poking of holes through your whack-a-doo theories is going to change it.
Giant meteor 2016!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:22PM
I didn't address them because they're irrelevant to this story. Check the second video when you get home. If you don't believe afterward that there's massive voter fraud happening every election, it's because you're actively choosing to place partisanship over the truth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:43PM
You didn't address them because they don't support your position. How come you don't address the fact that there is no investigation by the relevant authorities in these cases. Is this late breaking or are all of the law enforcement and prosecutors in on the election rigging?
I will watch the second video as impartially as I can, but reading about the author of this video below I doubt it will sway my opinion.. It sounds like he is KNOWN for selective editing and out right lies in his "video evidence"
Give me ACTUAL evidence. Not some edited out of context, faked, or blown out of proportion BS video made by a known liar. Comon SOMEONE GET SOME REAL EVIDENCE or drop it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:34PM
My position in this instance is Inform Yourself. If you're unwilling because it doesn't fit your worldview, oh well, I tried.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:47PM
Watch the videos. Watch them, and then search for the 'Clinton Cash' video. There's another - I think it's called 'Hillary's America', but not certain. Dirt, dirt, and more dirt.
That is why I say we have a choice between the court jester, and the wicked witch of the north/east/south/west.
Trump is a buffoon, but hillary is evil.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:23PM
'Hillary's America',
That "film" produced by a know voter fraudster and felon? And right-wing hack? Souza? (not John Phillips, either!)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:30PM
Pointing fingers? No one has any credibility unless they support Hitlery? Got it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Saturday October 22 2016, @05:35AM
It is called Hillary's America and the guy that made the video? Was given 3-5 in prison by Obama for making a vid exposing his corruption. Oh they said it was for "tax evasion" but as his lawyer pointed out in his 20 years of defending people against the feds he had NEVER seen anybody get actual time for the small amount the feds were claiming.
Hmmm...an administration using dirty tricks and the power of the fed to silence his political enemies, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah Nixon which this whole thing reminds me more and more of every day, and this is from a Bernie Backer who HAD voted left in every election since 1988...but no more, the DNC has simply become too corrupted, too owned by special interests, and too anti-democracy to be voted for again.
And I agree with you about Trump but I'll give you an even better reason to vote for him he will be watched constantly and have to fight for every change he desires and work hard to sell it to the American people while we have already seen that Hillary will be given a blank check because she is the corporate candidate and the establishment republicans suckle at the same corporate teats she does.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:57PM
Project Veritas has posted the full unedited footage of every one of their undercover stings. Every. One. And each and every time the Narrative, as parroted by you, is to dismiss the evidence by declaring them 'highly edited videos' while ignoring the reality that EVERY news package aired by any news organization has been 'highly edited' but the full footage is not made available.
Seeing as you guys have been bearing the same false witness against them for years now I'm left with either willful ignorance or malice. No other options are available, while it is normal to ascribe things to stupidity instead of malice, since nobody is that stupid that won't work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:38PM
Links for the unedited videos please. I will watch them and judge for myself.
Giant meteor 2016!
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:11PM
The root problem here is an unwillingness to discern, discover, and agree upon the facts, and a raging contempt for education, knowledge, and science.
If you want to be taken seriously, you'd better get the facts correct. Check _all_ the info, don't get sloppy and let one or two slide, then complain that others cherry picked the few bad nuggets of false info from the goldmine of truth. For example, the Washington Times article that Hairyfeet quotes says:
"Nearly 43,000 voters in Pennsylvania had potentially duplicate registrations in either Pennsylvania or other states, data researcher Voter Registration Data Crosscheck found."
Crosscheck? Really? Crosscheck doesn't stop voter fraud, Crosscheck IS voter fraud! http://www.gregpalast.com/help-us-stop-lynching-by-laptop-sign-the-petition/ [gregpalast.com] Crosscheck is a deliberately sloppy way of detecting supposed fraud by assuming that two people with the same first and last name might be the same person. Even when the people have middle names, different middle names, Crosscheck doesn't use those. As far as Crosscheck is concerned, Michael A. Jackson of Roanoak, VA could be the same person as Michael B. Jackson of Plymouth, MA. So when this Washington Times article extrapolates from that incorrect information that voting fraud could be rampant, that's just sensationalist bull. Notice also the weaselly way they word it: "potentially". Maybe that ought to be checked, hmm, find out if that's a yes there are lots of duplicate registrations or no there aren't?
As for the Project Veritas videos, how about this: http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/19/scott-foval-reportedly-fired-from-political-organization-over-sting-videos/ [snopes.com]
So, Project Veritas won't release the raw video, they will only release edited, heavily edited, video? In that case why should anyone striving for objectivity believe them?
Over the past 20+ years, I've watched the Republicans degenerate from a serious party with a valid political philosophy to a disgusting pusher of lying propaganda that isn't even all pretty unicorns and rainbows, it dips into the uglier corners of macho male bluster, what with this fetish for firearms and wars, and even rape. Legitimate rape, WTF? If that was the only case, I could excuse that as an aberration, an unfortunate exception. But no, Republicans insist on demonstrating over and over that they think less of women. Mourdock: "...even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended..." And this election it's the highest Republican himself, the nominee for President of the US, Trump: "Grab them by the pussy." It goes a long ways back, for instance Clayton Williams in the 1990s and his infamous comment about relaxing and enjoying the inevitable, be that bad weather or rape. They don't limit themselves to sexism, oh no, they've just got to do racism and religious intolerance too. They cry over the deficit, but blow trillions on unnecessary wars. They're contemptuous of science and fact to truly stunning levels. Why deny Global Warming? Why? We have tons of evidence that Global Warming is real, our fault, and a big problem. But seems that kind of problem doesn't fit the world view the Republicans want to have. Can't very well send forth the military to defeat that enemy. I'll give The Donald one thing, the War of Choice was a huge mistake, and it didn't help make America safer.
Given that truly abysmal track record, why should anyone not think this story is garbage, nothing more than a mess of alt-right lunatic conspiracy theories?
The Republican party needs a reboot. Badly. Or go die in a fire.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:40PM
For the same reason you believe MSM news who do the exact same thing. Oh, wait, you believe them because they tell you what you want to hear.
I agree. And the Democrats need it about, oh, fifteen times as bad. They are corrupt to the point of no longer being a political party so much as organized crime.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @10:30PM
I didn't see any support for MSM, and pointing out the flaws in others is not a good argument about a flaw in yours. I watched part of the video, and the cuts were a little damning. Context is left out, even worse, added by the editor in a cut between clips.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @10:45PM
So, anything that's not up to your standards is immediately irrelevant? Apparently you get no news whatsoever then and are left adrift without a clue what's going on in the world.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 21 2016, @03:49AM
You know how you can tell a Hillarybot? They either refuse to watch (the "see no evil" bit) or make excuses for the hidden camera footage.
Lets be honest here man, at this point there is absolutely no doubt there is massive voter fraud and corruption in both the DNC and white house because you have both members of the Hillary campaign AND a fricking election commissioner in a battleground state OPENLY TALKING ABOUT IT ON CAMERA!
I mean WTF are they gonna say at that point? They put words in their mouths? Don't believe your lying eyes? You can watch the video and see and hear them clear as day talking about busing in illegals to sway elections, a federal crime....see any of them going to jail? You think that if YOUR ass talked about committing federal crimes on camera you wouldn't be in a holding cell at this very moment?
Frankly they have NO excuses at this point, except to outright ignore the evidence and misdirect. And FWIW I don't give a rat's fuck what the Republicans say because 1.- this ain't kindergarten and "he did bad things so we can do bad things too!" is not a fucking excuse and 2.- I was a Bernie backer and watched as the primary was outright STOLEN from the American people by a politician that makes Nixon look honest and a MSM that will cover up every crime she commits because she kisses the right corporate booty.
I mean for fucks sake you had the head of the FBI admit under oath she lied to the FBI, lied to congress, kept classified emails on an unsecured server, used multiple unsecured devices in hostile countries AND if that wasn't enough willfully destroyed evidence when she heard there was an investigation....for fucks sake what does this woman have to do to get arrested in this country, become a fricking serial killer? There isn't anything subtle or even debatable at this point, between the wikileaks and hidden camera footage we have undeniable proof of widespread corruption in both the DNC and white house yet our media covers for it more than Pravda covered for the Kremlin!
I'm sorry but anybody who sees this mountain of evidence and still makes excuses? Is doing nothing but lying to themselves and frankly isn't worth wasting the time to respond to, as I said wikileaks could drop a vid tomorrow of Hillary holding a woman down for Billy to rape and they would be "But but Trump said bitches in 1997, that is more important than actual crimes!". I guess if Nixon would have been a D elected in this century Watergate would have been a "Russian plot" and he would have had a wall of celebrities and the MSM to tell you to just ignore your lying eyes and vote D, because corruption and federal crimes only count if its done by someone who isn't a part of the establishment.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @09:26AM
I know an idiot when I see one.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 21 2016, @10:23AM
Sold all your mirrors then, have you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:57PM
TLDR: Your source is BS, your point is wrong, and you have made up your mind not by looking at the facts but by deciding what is happening and searching for evidence to prove it. You should be just as ashamed for voting for trump as anyone that votes for HRC.
And poor Hairyfeet wonders why he gets modded "flamebait"? Has he even taken the Hairyfeet Challenge? How could anything Hairyfeet posts not be flamebait?
BTW, I never try to shame people for voting for Trump. Instead I shame them for being stupid and racist, which is the reason they vote for Trump. Much more constructive, and not censorship at all!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:50PM
Your own partisanship is well known. Hairyfeet happens to be right. If the voters in America had any sense at all, they would realize that Johnson and Stein are both far lesser evils than the two in the lead. But, collectively, we are to god damned stupid to understand simple truths. Because we are stupid, we are going to have a steaming pile of fecal matter elected to the highest office of our land.
(Score: 2, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:08PM
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:29PM
I'm really hoping that the Russians CAN and HAVE rigged the election: can you imagine Hillary supporting President Trump? Not a chance... she'd be the first one to be yelling 'FIXED!', and of course Comey would be supporting her 100%.
America is humped. Second Amendmenters need to clear house of both T and H.
Bernie for 2016! :)
(at least Bernie gave me far less willies....)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:07PM
Like I've observed before, if Clinton wins, it'll be because of this massive voting fraud. If Trump wins, it'll be because of these Russian hackers. Nobody has good evidence for either proposition.
A co-worker noted that I may need to move my prediction of 2018 riots up to 2017. NOW may be a good time to stay away from major cities :/
I don't know what's going to happen, but no matter how I look at it, all of this is very, very bad.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:48PM
Trump should know, he's the one doing the rigging. He's trying to lose as hard as he possibly can, it looks to me, by offending EVERYONE except misogynists, racists, other bigots, those who hate the military, and incredibly STUPID people.
I can't figure out why he's doing it, though. But it sure looks like he's trying damned hard to lose. I wonder how much the DNC paid him?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:41PM
I only have a gig of memory and that site is HORRIBLY designed, but what I saw of it before it yanked me off its page was ISOLATED INCIDENTS. One dead WWII vet in an entire county voting is far from the "widespread voter fraud" Trump claims.
Factcheck.org says: [factcheck.org]
However, voter suppression [wikipedia.org] actually is a problem.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:49PM
Will The Mighty Buzzard commit Seppuku when the unedited videos prove that he is an idiot?
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:50PM
Nope, but unlike you I'll admit when I'm wrong instead of doubling down to the point of insanity.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:55PM
That's a slight exaggeration, but not much. They did give minimal coverage to the email scandal.
We wouldn't have Clinton as the nominee for the Democrats if the mainstream media hadn't published story after story about how her win was inevitable; while completely ignoring the voting irregularities that were coincidentally only affecting Sanders' voters.
They fucked up the 2000 election by releasing projections while voting was still underway on the west coast and they're still fucking things up now.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:01PM
They fucked up the 2000 election by releasing projections while voting was still underway on the west coast and they're still fucking things up now.
No. They fucked up by calling Florida for Gore WHILE THE POLLS WERE OPEN IN FLORIDA. They 'forgot' that the panhandle is in a different timezone and thus voting was still occurring. But they knew the panhandle was believed to be more Bush leaning so discouraging them from voting would be a good thing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:51PM
> while refusing to publish anything even remotely critical of Clinton.
Hey, did you hear about Benghazi?
And did you know Clinton ran an email server out of her basement?
Or that Bill Clinton keeps dicking bimbos and probably assaulted some women?
What about how the DNC was in the bag for Clinton and totally screwed over Sanders?
Or that criminal Clinton Foundation selling access to the US government?
Don't forget that time Clinton literally shitted all over Georgia. [cbsnews.com]
The media is so totally in the bag for Clinton, those are big stories and they got no coverage. At all
The only reason you don't think clinton doesn't get tons and tons of negative coverage in the mainstream press is because you've got your nose buried in the alt-right press and simply have no idea what's really getting coverage. The one thing we rely on from buzzard is that his posts are all about him whether he knows it or not.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:55PM
From the MSM? No, I didn't. Or rather I did but they'd mention it, comment so as to make it look like a witch hunt, and move on. The entire MSM has done fuck-all in the way of investigative journalism on Clinton. The closest we've gotten is Chris Wallace asking about the emails and accepting a dodge as an answer. Me? I actually read a lot of the Podesta emails and such. There's clear criminality there but nobody named Clinton will ever be prosecuted by or even seriously investigated by an Obama DOJ/FBI.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:16PM
It sure looks to me like you have a dog in this fight: JOHNSON. We already had two President Johnsons, and they both sucked. Are you thinking "third time's a charm"?
If I thought she had a snowball's chance in hell I'd vote Stein, but since she doesn't... but since Illinois is going Hillary, my Presidential vote won't matter much. Now my daughter's vote... she lives in Ohio. Since she's in college you know she's voting for free tuition.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:56PM
I don't like Johnson very much either, really. I do dig the slogan though. My vote for him is to get the Libertarians a seat at the table next time.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:31PM
He's a lying prick, and you're a cocksucker. Which is better?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @09:00PM
Even if the subject matter itself is of partisan flavor, the presentation is what's being considered here. That the media, humans, readers, professionals really CAN still to investigative reports. And not just cut'n'pastes from each other- a hodge podge of minimal facts fluffed up with self-focused opinions designed to direct readers into the presenter's view.
Buzz is showing us what used to be (and can still return) as "studied reporting". If it was about pizza then you'd complain that he must hate seafood, right? C'mon man.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:50AM
Had time for a couple replies while the battery for the trolling motor charged. You're on your own until this afternoon now for real though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:51PM
Ha! I see what you did there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:33PM
Enjoy. Let us know if you catch anything. I'll vote for it via a write in.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:52PM
Couple keeper bass. Couldn't find any crappie active today. Bailed before the rain rolled in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:18PM
I wouldn't equate conservative political activist with a hidden mic as "investigative journalism". I recall the creative editing he did with the posing as telephone guy stunt, and the Planned Parenthood stunt. If he did some actual journalism, that would be one thing, but he is either lazy, or disingenuous with his material. Makes for great red meat snippet material, as you've shown.
Maybe repost if there is some actual investigative journalism from somebody trying to get to the heart of the story. For instance, who are Americans United for Change? What are their ties to the DNC or to Clinton? Do they act independent of the candidate like Rove's Crossroads super PAC, which gave Romney headaches at times, or are they directly tied to the candidate like the Cheney's Swift Boaters?
At the very least, if you are going to post an "Op Ed" making such wild claims, you should at least do the bare minimum of basic "investigative journalism" yourself and give your commentary some context. Who is Project Veritas Action? Who is it run by?
For someone who is "tired" of the politics, your submission is a pretty rabble rousing red meat diatribe to drop. It's fine for a journal entry, but it is also a rather disappointing story to post here as well unless this site is interested in a slew of "investigative journalistic" videos and stories we could post of Trump that could easily fill the submission queue between now and the end of the year. You don't hear about his sales tax fraud? Why is that? Is it because of a grand conservative coverup? The collusion of all the media to help him? There are decades of crappy, shady, and illegal stuff to run on Trump? Why is the media so easy on him? Because they clearly are, aren't they? Maybe I'll submit many "Op Ed" articles on this because there are plenty of this kind of under-reported material on him. Is that the kind of crap we want to fill up the pages with here?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:23PM
I've submitted several articles about shady Trump crap. They've all been rejected. So before someone chimes in with the "post it yourself" crap I'm here to say I have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:59PM
Have to talk to an ed about that. I don't push stories out, just occasionally submit them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:54PM
Awwww, man - we've all had stories rejected. So, submit 30 stories, and they'll feel sorry, and take that 30th. (Don't submit the same exact story 30 times, switch it up a little bit!)
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:53PM
At the moment we are getting plenty of 'politics' stories. The balance of the site is roughly 70% STEM, and 30% other topics likely to interest our community. That 30% covers everything that we can't stretch into STEM, and that covers a lot of topics. To be published, your politics submission would have to be better than most of the others and likely to provoke an intelligent discussion.
We simply don't need any more bashing of one candidate or another. As a site, we do not support either of the 2 main candidates - or anyone else for that matter. But please, for those of us (Americans and others) who have already had our fill of this election, make the submissions interesting and relevant so that we can all enjoy them. Discussions that result in two camps throwing accusations and pointing fingers at each other do not offer anything to the majority of our community.
I don't recall your particular submissions but there again I do try to read subs without regard to the submitter - it gives everyone a fair chance of making a contribution to the site. And we do try to give a reason now when we reject a story. I'm sure that we don't get it right all of the time, but we are trying to keep the site on the path that was agreed over 2 years ago, while also trying to make enough coverage of those stories which do not fit easily into the technical slant of this site.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:57PM
Ya think? I explicitly left out the dozens of Podesta emails I've seen that would qualify as a smoking gun for anyone whose name isn't Clinton. A few of them even rose to the level of definitive proof of felonies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:49PM
Why leave out your best evidence? Lets see the smoking guns and the commentary on them. Reasonable sources please, no right wing hit men please.
Giant Meteor 2016!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:01PM
Because I'm lazy. Looking up relevant statutes, linking them, finding the proper emails again (there are now officially a fuckload of them), linking them... That's a lot of work and none of you are going to change your minds even if Hillary comes out and says "Yep, I did all of it" on national TV.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:43PM
Who died and gave you editorial control. Honestly if anyone wanted your opinion we would yank your chain. But congrats on becoming one of the select (as in almost nil) editors in favor of trump.
Anyone who votes for either HRC or Trump should be shot out of a cannon. Giant Meteor 2016! Lets just get it over with.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:58PM
Two swings, two misses. You're really sucking hind tit today.
A) Not an editor.
B) Not a Trump fan.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:53PM
Maybe you are not an editor but you certainly seem to have no issue getting your BS Op-ED piece posted to the front page. Are we so low on submissions they are dredging through staffers journals now? Cause that's where this belongs.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:57PM
Unfortunately, yes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:54PM
Has it ever occured to the editors that posting nothing might be a better option than smearing buzzard crap all over the place?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Friday October 21 2016, @08:51AM
Of course it has occurred to us. You've been around here long enough to know that we have tried that solution - count how many stories we put out each day now compared with 2 years ago.
Not everyone agrees with your view of this story - calling it 'buzzcrap' rather than taking part in an intelligent debate is not the best response. However, with politics it is frequently the case that the comments deteriorate to the lowest level. This story has already received more than 3 times the number of any other stories posted on the same day, so people are reading it and commenting on it. Or are we supposed to only publish stories that meet with your particular views? A better solution altogether would be for people to submit more stories so that we can pick the cream of the crop. Our IRC bot (#rss-bot) is finding well over 100 stories per day (sometimes finding more that 300 in a single day) worth writing up, but very few in our community seem to want to make the effort to do so. We are also in the process of creating a new nexus for politics, so that you can prevent all stories from that nexus being displayed, simply by changing you preferences page.
The original aim of the site was to publish 1 story per hour. We have already had to cut back to around 15 stories per day because of lack of submissions. I mentioned the other day [soylentnews.org] that our community has changed recently. More people want to be spoon-fed with their favourite group think stories rather than submit stories or take part in an intelligent debate. The editors could leave gaps in the story output, but experience has shown that we also risk losing readership and page hits. There are currently 9 submissions in the queue and, personally speaking, I don't think 7 of them deserve to go to the front page. The solution is in the community's hands.
...and people wonder why I am so reluctant to publish stories about the US election.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 21 2016, @02:11PM
Has it ever occured to the editors that posting nothing might be a better option than smearing buzzard crap all over the place?
Think about it. Stagnation is death for a site like SN. Even the occasional bit of weak content is better than nothing.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:23PM
Gagh i submitted like 40 this week. I even managed to restrain my wisecracks on most of them.
Calgon, take me away!
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @08:14AM
Apparently shills got to slashdot. Similar story never made it out of the firehose to the front page despite hitting "red hot" status very quickly.
https://slashdot.org/submission/6407639/democrat-operatives-caused-violence-at-trump-rallies-framed-sanders-supporters#comments [slashdot.org]
They also disabled submissions from Anonymous Cowards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:19AM
unemployed as a result of these videos. Whether Mrs. Clinton should be as well, that's for you to decide.
No, Clinton does not need to be employed, because she is a millionaire and because she is over the age of retirement. Got any other matters to be decided?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:17PM
He means employed as President. That is, it's up to us (voters) to decide whether this scandal that's cost some party operatives their jobs should also cost her the election. And hey, if she was running against anyone but Trump (or better yet, if we had a voting system that doesn't create two-party lock-in), it might.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:27AM
Why start a post with a lie?
Anyways, there should be a paragraph break before "These two videos by ..."
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:42AM
Lie? I'm dead tired of even hearing about the Presidential race. The people are going to be fucked no matter which one of them wins, so I don't really give much of a damn.
Your wish is my command about the p tag though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:59PM
Judging by the mods of the parent comment, I can only infer that people don't like the extra paragraph there.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:01PM
And here I thought I was done getting graded on my proficiency with the English language when I got out of school.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:56PM
"Judging by the mods of the parent comment, I can only infer that SOME (partisan) people don't like the extra paragraph there."
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:40PM
Because opposing partisanship makes you a partisan. All statements are of equal validity. There are no facts, just tribes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 21 2016, @02:21PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:46AM
The Soviet newpaper Pravda ("Truth") was eventually used by many Russians as a way to obtain a good idea of the truth of a reported account by believing an opposing viewpoint to the one presented in Pravda.
It's much the same in the USA now for the plebs and the mainstream media: almost every major point the mainstream media has been pushing recently is blatantly false. The shorthand way to adopt a generally accurate view of such subjects is to generally take the opposite view of a point being pushed hard by US media.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by weeds on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:09PM
AC: Do you really think there is an analogy there?
"Pravda was the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Pravda paper is today run by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation" - thanks Wikipedia.
The US media is liberal, but that's a far cry from being run by the democratic party. Take a look at the BBC or the CBC, is it suddenly clear to you that the US media has some huge bias? I guess the US liberal party runs those too.
The US media is motivated by one thing - getting eyes on. The person/event/incident that will get the most eyes, gets the front page and the headlines. Looking at the candidates, it's easy to see who's going to get the press and that it's not likely to be flattering.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:19PM
Yes, obviously, which is why I made the comparison.
I thank you for your service, in keeping with the tradition of not RTFS, but your assertion appears to be contradicted by said media refusing to mention what looks like a critical election story uncovered by old-school investigative journalism which has drawn 5 million recorded viewers [youtube.com] in two days, and 2.7 million in one [youtube.com], with more of the story promised to come.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by weeds on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:06PM
For sure, I didn't watch the video. My comment was about media, not the content of the video.
First video - "Rigging the Election" would better be called "Dirty Tricks in line at the Trump Rallies." Clearly dirty tricks. I'm not going to get on board with, "Getting Trump supporters to throw a punch in line at a rally" = "rigging the election." It's despicable, I don't condone it.
Second video - They describe a method to register illegal voters and how to bus in voters to vote in place of people who have moved. That is voter fraud alright. No one can deny that. And those bastards need to go to jail.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:43PM
Of course they'll cheat. I wonder why they bother trying to hide it anymore. They've already demonstrated that Hillary is above the law. She can do whatever she likes and the establishment will never prosecute her. They've really enjoyed rubbing our noses in that fact, so I don't see why they don't also steal the election openly and rub our noses in that, too. I am sure they'd have great fun drinking their cognac on their balconies while the powerless masses gnash their teeth in the gutters below.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:12PM
No one can deny that. And those bastards need to go to jail.
Which gets directly to the point. The so called media will first attempt to simply not speak it, but if that fails and the story breaks through they will deny that any serious crime happened, certainly nothing jailworthy. Because they must, at all cost, maintain their Narrative that there is no 'real' election fraud and that all discussion of it is undermining trust in our government.
They are 'too big to jail.'
It started when Nixon was weak and decided 'it would be too painful' to contest the outright fraud that put JFK in the Oval Office. It is now hard to find a historian who disputes that it happened. But once it was made clear that even if they got caught the Republicans would cuck out 'for the good of the Republic' and allow the cheating to go unchallenged it has grown ever worse every cycle. As the lying bastards in the media wing of Democrat Party insist that it is UnAmerican to want to prevent fraud it grows ever worse. Senator Franken's final margin of victory was smaller than the number of convictions for election fraud. Ponder that statement.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Friday October 21 2016, @02:19PM
After reading and participating, I come to this conclusion:
Neither side is going to scream too much about the other side since they both do it. "kettle, meet pot."
The videos have been out long enough for the republicans to have jumped all over them. They could have commercials running, they could have brought it up in the debate... they didn't.
We, so much to the joy of "they", spend our time bickering about which side is worse and miss the real truth that the system is broken, not rigged, broken.
Each side does it's best to take advantage of those breaks.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday October 21 2016, @03:03PM
It is worse than even that now. Back when Nixon was surrendering 'for the good of the country' there was still a hint of a two party system. There is only now one 'side', the UniParty. It is like the Harlem Globetrotters, the Democrats are the Globetrotters and the Republicans are the Washington Generals. They pretend to be two parties, they go out on the field and play a sham game for the amusement of the audience but the Generals know that a) the audience is there to watch the Globetrotters, b) the audience expects the Globetrotters to win and c) it doesn't really matter since their paycheck says "Globetrotters, Inc" on it too. Besides, what would they DO if they actually won? The Republicans now look to the exact same 'sunny uplands of history' as the Democrats. Even 99% of the Conservatives only want to slow the trip down because of the transition costs; but most of the 'hills they would die on' are hills the Progressives took from their fathers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:17PM
You put a lot of stock in videos from someone known for fraud. I'll reserve opinion until after I see the unedited video.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:40PM
Look up the BCCI scandal and remember that few people were ever charged and the money and power was left untouched. It's not that the US liberal party controls them, it's that they control the Democratic Party and the BBC and CBC and so on, so they get to define what liberals and progressives are allowed to believe. Leftist ideas like Transgenderism and Islamophobia are literally invented in a board room somewhere and pushed out on all controlled channels simultaneously when they come to a consensus to adopt the platform.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:04PM
Your tinfoil hat may be on too tight.
I have read somewhere that if you want ideas to spread, you have to do it at the grass-roots first. When a new idea pops up in the Mainstream Media, It may look like a coordinated plot. But it may actually mean that fact-checking was happening with local people.
I specifically object to the notion that transgenderism is a leftist idea. I know of several transgendered people brought up in conservative families. They had to decide that life was more important than good relations with their family. Being transgendered is not something you choose.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:05PM
Nice tangent there. He wasn't talking about being a tranny, he was talking about how the left has taken up championing them as special snowflakes who are oppressed by everyone who doesn't actively campaign for them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:07PM
I used that term, "special snowflake" at work last night, in a mixed crowd of male, female, black, white, and Mexican. Amazingly, most of them had never heard the term. Their reactions were - interesting. Special snowflakes. It seemed to have slightly different connotations for black people, but they all got a kick out of it.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:16PM
Many people on the right appear to want to deny the existence of trans people. I have seen trans people called special snowflakes [www.therebel.media] or similar just for wanting to be gendered properly.
- Bathroom Bills: Dehumanization and Control (Gender Analysis 06) [genderanalysis.net]
By Zinnia Jones, bold in original.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:40PM
Trannys are by definition not gendered properly. And no, it's not to dehumanize them. It's to keep the vast majority of the other users of the bathroom from having to be freaked out by a weirdo being around them while they're especially vulnerable.
Yes, I'm sure they have to piss the same as I do. Let them find a one-holer. That way they might get a scowl for being in the wrong bathroom but nobody is really going to care and the 99% of us who aren't confused about what gender we are can take a shit in peace.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:21PM
I see I read GP correctly :)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 21 2016, @12:15AM
Apparently not if you're still missing the point. 99% of the population should not be inconvenienced to accommodate an extreme minority that have affirmatively chosen to be deviant.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday October 21 2016, @12:20AM
Just where do you think they were going pee before if became a hot-button issue?
They are not asking for special accommodation. They are asking to be left alone.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 21 2016, @12:26AM
No, they're asking to make the vast majority of the nation uncomfortable to accommodate their chosen weirdness.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday October 21 2016, @12:32AM
Trans people try to act invisible while using the washroom.
If they don't pass well, they are probably more nervous than the rest of the population.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @03:52AM
...and here's where your argument falls apart. Transgendered folks don't choose to be trans, we're born that way, and we aren't "deviant" by any stretch, or at least no moreso than anyone else.
I just want to go in, find a toilet, do my business, wash my hands, straighten my clothes, and leave, same as any other woman. I don't need anyone accosting me, or claiming I'm just there to spy/ogle, or something else equally ridiculous.
What's so difficult about that concept? The only real demands any one of us have can be summed up thus:
I'm just here to pee, so leave me the hell alone!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 21 2016, @10:20AM
You apparently don't know what the word deviant means. You should look it up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:30PM
I still say the recent fascination of the media with transgender issues grew out of a drunken bet between press hacks who thought they could get the whole world talking about it, in much the same way that L Ron Hubbard and his buddy bet they could invent a religion and created Scientology.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:03PM
"that's a far cry from being run by the democratic party."
how sure are you of that statement? An interesting exercise would be to look up the family names of the people who own the liberal media (hearst, turner, etc) and try to untangle their involvement in the party. Many of us have often wondered who really calls the shots. But, all the shot calling is made in private. George Soros figures in there somewhere.
Who runs the DNC? Who really runs the RNC?
Watch those videos, and a man explains how the DNC can do things that are illegal for the DNC to do, with the application of just a little smoke and mirrors. Take those smoke and mirrors up a level, and start asking questions.
We constantly hear Hitlery harping on that "vast right wing conspiracy". People who have made a modest attempt to keep up with the news know that Hitlery is ass-deep in her own conspiracies. Unless they refuse to hear the truth due to partisan interests.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:04PM
Random fact: Soros is mentioned well over 100 times in the Podesta emails.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:23PM
That's not how I read outlets like the New York Times, actually. The point is not to find out the truth. The point is to find out what the Powers That Be want to be declared to be "The Truth". For example, the Times recently published an extended piece on how the Russian military is using new sneaky tactics, never mind that the US has done all of the things they are accusing Russia of doing. So now I know that I'm supposed to, as a citizen, fear Russia, which means that they're gearing up for a war with Russia under the future Clinton administration.
So it's not a waste, just make sure to interpret it as propaganda, not fact.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:37PM
Why would they want a war with Russia? Is it because, once again, they're living on top of our oil? Or are they thinking of taking them down for all the BRICS impertinence? They've kind of neutered Brazil already, so Russia's up next kind of thing?
I'm glad you pointed it out, though, because i have been thinking that all the recent tension with Russia is rather invented and hollow.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday October 21 2016, @02:50AM
Some reasons the Powers That Be in the USA want war with Russia:
- They're allied with countries that are sitting on oil we want, such as Iran.
- They've been cutting in on our action, e.g. resisting our efforts of a Western takeover of Ukraine.
- They're unhappy that they never got that final Cold War showdown, because Gorbachev screwed the whole game up in 1989.
- They want to make sure all those military contractors get sagans of dollars thrown their direction, and they can't do that if there isn't a war on, and the War on Terror is winding down.
- Their ally in Syria, Bashar al Assad, makes it harder for Israel to commit the religiously-motivated genocide of the Palestinians they've always wanted.
These aren't exactly what I'd call good reasons, nor are they motivated by anything remotely resembling Truth, Justice, Humanitarian Concerns, or any of the usual excuses tossed around, of course, but they are exactly how Clinton's good friend Henry Kissinger thinks.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:41PM
I really doubt they're aiming at a war with Russia, though that may be the result. I *think* they just intend increased friction and tension.
OTOH, this is stuff coming out at the end of the campaign, so I wouldn't believe that it really indicates anything long-term.
That said, everyone seems to be assuming that things are a lot more unified than they seem to me to be. And those who are busy being horrified at DNC plans for election fraud seem complacent about the widely published plans of the Republicans to do the same, using different tools.
There's no good guy in this election cycle. Sanders *MAY* have been one, but it was clear before he announced his candidacy that he was the designated loser. (See, I think, superdelegates.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:07PM
That's kind of pushing a bias of its own though, no?
I mean, think of it this way: RT is basically the propaganda wing of the Russian Federation, and they run criticism of America all the time. Now, just because the reason they're doing that is to push their own anti-American viewpoint, doesn't mean the criticism isn't true. It just means you have to be a little more discerning about what's truth and what's a lie.
(Score: 5, Touché) by goody on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:20PM
Yea, why haven't we heard anything about Hillary's email scandal, or that thing that happened in Libya? What was that called? Ben-something? And her treatment of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct accusers? Why hasn't the media mentioned that at all? And this Clinton Foundation? No one seems to even know it exists!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:35PM
Of course it was covered - it's all a big nothingburger [youtube.com], didn't you listen to what the media said? "There's no big deal about Hillary being grossly neglige [youtube.com]^W^W extremely careless in her transmission and storage of known-classified material on her unclassified and wildly insecure personal computing devices."
I saw it on TV, so it's true!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:10PM
The thing about the Clinton email server is that others have been caught doing far worse in the last decade. It's important to note that Clinton herself set up the scheme on the advice of Colin Powell, who had done exactly the same thing and got away with it. Then there's the whole issue with Petraeus willfully sharing classified information with his mistress. It's not hard to see that that's much worse than what Clinton did on legal, moral, and security grounds (a great way to be a spy is to be somebody's mistress). Petraeus was convicted but did no time (which is further evidence that they really don't like to punish the loose-lipped over there).
None of this excuses her conduct, but it reveals something uncomfortable about how we treat misconduct. It was somehow more OK when those guys did it, but not when Clinton did. The reason that the media is done talking about it is that they know this. They know it's a double standard and they don't want to be called sexist.
This is why many (especially here) despise political correctness. It paralyzes us from talking about certain things that need to be talked about. But what's really unfortunate is that it's only an issue because of who she is. There's a contingent out there that wants to make sure she, specifically, can't get away with anything. Most guys in politics don't have to deal with that, and they get away with all kinds of shit we never hear about. And by the way, people outside of politics like Trump get away with it all the time because they haven't spent the last 30 years on record.
So remember the Clinton email server next time a top-ranking general shares classified information inappropriately. Remember the Clinton email server next time a high-ranking government official inevitably does the same thing. Oh, and remember the Clinton email server the next time that a candidate for president invites a hostile foreign government to hack into American government emails stored on an insecure device, which said hostile foreign government proceeds to do, sharing what it feels like sharing to make the other presidential candidate look bad. Because there's more than one candidate in this election who may be backed by a conspiracy to get them elected. And if we start holding everyone else to the same fire normally reserved for Hillary, it won't be a PC problem to hold her accountable for the same things.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:36PM
"If we set up our own email server inside the house of a former President, protected by the Secret Service and a very expensive security system, that should be safe, right?" Come on, you know the administration where you work right now is just as ignorant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:48PM
The thing about the Clinton email server is that others have been caught doing far worse in the last decade.
Ok, list them then.
It's important to note that Clinton herself set up the scheme on the advice of Colin Powell, who had done exactly the same thing and got away with it.
False. Powell did not set up a private email server, did not destroy evidence, did not repeatedly propagate classified information on an unauthorized network, and did not successfully evade both FOIA requests and public records laws.
Then there's the whole issue with Petraeus willfully sharing classified information with his mistress. [...] Petraeus was convicted but did no time (which is further evidence that they really don't like to punish the loose-lipped over there).
Which administation decided to let Petraeus off easy again? Just because the Obama administration decides, once again, to protect its higher level bureaucrats and politicians from conviction for their crimes doesn't mean that Clinton shouldn't be facing a trial right now.
Your post demonstrates the absurdity of the Clinton defense. Sure, she committed multiple national security felonies, but so did Powell (even though he didn't) and Patraeus (who only avoided serious jail time because Obama failed to enforce the rule of law). Thus, she shouldn't be tried for those crimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:50PM
Clinton herself set up the scheme on the advice of Colin Powell,
1) He is not running for president. If he does we can bring it up then.
2) She STILL did it. Just because someone else robs liquor stores and then you go do it too on their advice does make you any less culpable.
3) She wants to say 'the russians did it'. Could even be true. However, perhaps all that slimy crap they are doing should not be put in email form? There is one thing I have learned with computers. Do not write it down if you dont want people to find out.
4) It is going to be a wild ride from now on. This sort of politics is going to be tame for what is to come.
So remember the Clinton email server next time a top-ranking general shares classified information inappropriately.
There are hundreds of things I could share with you that previous employees of the gov have done wrong. They still should not get away with it. I am not going to excuse them either. When I heard that wikileaks has GOP stuff. I was not thinking 'oh no' I was think HELL YEAH lets out them too.
Lets face it these people are doing slimy shady things in our name. Then patting us on the head going 'oh you poor soul you have no idea how much I do for you just be a nice dear and vote for me'. That is bullshit. They get to play a virtue signalling game with us. Well *WE* get to play it with them.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:06PM
Worse behavior does not excuse illegal behavior.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:25PM
No but it does make a bunch of the Republicans criticizing her hypocrites, and it makes a lot of people who hate her for it hypocrites when they don't hold others to the same standards. For some reason, it only pisses them off that Hillary does it.
I guess that's the result of decades of indoctrination from the right. At every opportunity, for years and years, Republicans have demonized Hillary in hyperbolic fashion, teaching you and others to hate and fear her. They knew she was going for the presidency so they thought they'd protect against it by training the public to hate and fear her. It doesn't matter what's true or false, it doesn't matter whether or not she's better or worse than any other candidate, they knew if they repeated the message "Hillary is the Devil" enough, you'd believe it.
And you fell for it. You've been manipulated as much as the people you feel superior to because of your "enlightened" opinions.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:18PM
Obviously, you are not listening to those people who do not support Hillary.
Let me lay out my own position in this election one more time:
We have a choice between the Court Fool, and the Evil Witch. I would rather have the Court Fool hurt me out of sheer stupidity, rather than have the evil witch hurting me for her own pleasure. Ignorance versus evil intent. I would counsel you to vote either Johnson or Stein. If you MUST vote one of the two big parties, then vote for Trump.
Like millions of other voters, I don't support Trump, but I do see him as the lesser evil. But, I don't intend to vote for that lesser evil - I'm going to vote for Jill Stein. I don't "like" her a whole lot, but she is better qualified than either of the freaks who are constantly in the news.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:46PM
I understand their point of view. What you are doing is purposely misinterpreting what I'm saying because you like to feel persecuted. I never said Hillary was great, good, or even OK. What I did say is that Republicans have run a decades-long fear campaign against her, indoctrinating anyone who would listen into the "cult of anti-Hillary."
There are definitely problems with her that need to be addressed, but wouldn't you rather they be discussed rationally? You're even spouting hyperbolic "evil witch" nonsense in your reply. In your brain, you've voluntarily turned off all possible avenues of a reasonable discussion. It's all emotion-driven gut reactions based on hearing the message of "Hillary is evil" over and over again. Hearing a message over and over again affects you whether you admit it or not. If someone had an orchestrated campaign to be called a pedophile over and over again, with no real evidence to back it up and then categorically refuted over and over again, you'd better believe a big portion of the people who hear that message are going to spit on that guy in the street. Even people who *know* the allegations were outright lies are going to feel uncomfortable sitting next to him on the bus.
Can you honestly tell me that you think hyperbolic fear-mongering is actually good for the country? Or maybe it's OK but ONLY when it's against someone you don't like, maybe it's OK because it's just an emergency state. Maybe you're so confident that people are suddenly going to start using their higher brain functions once the evil witch is gone. It doesn't work like that. It's a race to the bottom and we're only going to drag ourselves out of it when we wake up, look in the mirror, and become disgusted at how we acted.
I'm just hoping for reasonable discussions not dominated by visceral fear.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by calzone on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:52PM
damn I used up my mod points but parent needs to be a 5
Time to leave Soylent News [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:06PM
Why do you say that? All I see in the grandparent [soylentnews.org] is "LEAVE HILLARY ALOOOOONE!" uninformed whining. Sure, there has been plenty of mere suspicion that doesn't seem to have enough hard proof to claim Hillary was directly responsible (ala Vince Foster's "double-tap suicide"), but this has indeed changed in recent times.
Notably, Hillary's felony-criminal behavior regarding the handling, transmission, and storage of known-classified data using her wildly insecure private email server (and other unclassified devices). I'd go into more detail about security clearance revokation, but that pretty much goes without saying when it comes to gross negligence [cornell.edu] (synonymous with "extremely careless") of handling classified data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:50PM
If that's honestly what you got out of that post, then you are indeed extremely indoctrinated, exactly like that post talked about.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:12PM
Nice spin. Colin Powell has stated, explicity, that Hillary can't pin that shit on him. AFTER THE FACT of setting up her mail server, Powell told Hillary what he did, and WARNED HER THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL!!!
Try to get your facts straight. Just Google "colin powell can't pin this on me".
None of Hillary's predecessors took that mail server thing as far as she did, and each of them was spanked when their bad deeds were exposed. Hillary's mail server distilled all of the illegal and all of the evil of each of those people you refer to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @09:33AM
She destroyed evidence AFTER a subpoena was issued. That is more than enough. That action gets everybody who is not Hillary put in jail. All this other stuff trying to claim all she did was such and such and how it's less than other people who got whatever punishment is spin, disorientation, and misdirection. Don't engage in that, I know you're better than that!
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday October 21 2016, @08:26PM
When you delete 18 minutes of tape its a felony, when you delete 33,000 its a statistic
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:13PM
Benghazi was SUCH a big deal, that Republicans investigated her over and over again and couldn't find ANYTHING to pin on her! WOW! That's HUGE! Even the Republicans are in on the conspiracy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:15PM
It's a big club - and you ain't in it [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:29PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:20PM
Yeah - remember the wench developed a convenient blood clot in her brain to explain why she couldn't remember stuff. Her plausible deniability was wearing thin, so she had a blood clot. Wow.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:07PM
Podesta emails have them outright saying remove the classification markings so that blah can be faxed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:22PM
The ironic thing is that Trump is right, the system is rigged - but it is this rigged system that got him where he is as a presidential candidate and he doesn't even see it. "They" (at the risk of sounding like Dale Gribble) wanted Clinton in charge from day one and had to find someone that wouldn't get too many votes from those that would not want to vote for a woman, but still appear to get popular votes, while easily controlled at the last minute.
For example, of COURSE he has done and said "inappropriate" things against women. Trump is an over-sized testosterone dripping baboon, who like other popular figures has been around long enough to have lived in a time when that wasn't considered the worst thing ever. The only thing "surprising" is that they didn't dig up more of that at the start before he became an official candidate... Oh, I wonder why that was?
Did anyone really notice how before the first debate the media was yapping that they were about 50-50? Not bloody likely. Obvious manufactured statistics are obvious. "They" were trying to make the viewing public feel like they had a choice and that both Kang and Kodos here are somehow both good choices and the only choices.
Of course, there has been virtually no mention of any third party candidates in the main stream media. Like they don't even exist. Are they even worth voting for? Nobody that watches the mainstream media will ever know.
This is one presidential election where everybody needs to go to the polls and decisively vote "none of the above".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:40PM
Yeah, and also IMHO Donald Tramp was hand-picked and promoted with great help from Democrats' election riggers to become THE candidate of Republicans because he was the candidate most easy to put down in campaign. I would even go as far to imply that he has been Democrats' mole in Republican camp from Day 1, and if he was, by any unlikely chance, to be voted next POTUS, he would step out and leave the office to Hilary. The whole process is farce, it is rigged and rigged over again. There is literally no choice - at this point the choice had already been removed and its basically the same elections as in North Korea - one candidate only.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:42PM
because "mommy knows what's best for us"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:02PM
The trouble with that theory is that you're ascribing more competence to the Democratic Party than they deserve. Politicians are not really planners and doers. They surf the waves of the press and try to run to the spots that make them look best, and flee the spots that make them look worst. The real puppet masters are the Deep State that controls both parties. The parties both do their bidding. The Deep State did not want Trump because they had already annointed Hillary as their avatar. They have been grooming her for years. They wanted her in 8 years ago, but Obama surprised them and eked through. Luckily for them they were able to immediately shackle his agenda by taking advantage of his naivete and surrounding him with their minions in the key positions of Defense, Treasury, and State. The last they gave to Hillary because the lack of real foreign policy experience had been a key weakness in her campaign. Since then they have invited her to Bilderberg summits, Davos, and all the usual places where they brought her fully into the fold.
On the Republican side they had Jeb Bush. The Bushes always did well for them, so they thought they would run another one. But they couldn't keep a lid on the dark, chaotic fury of the Know-nothings in the Republican ranks who have been suffering their tender caresses for decades. Trump tapped into that and rode it to the nomination. The Deep State didn't want him, and they don't want the dark, chaotic fury of the Know-nothings. They're really afraid of it. They're afraid of red running in their balance sheets and perhaps in the street, and they're right. That would be an unalloyed good thing, except there are a goodly number of virulent racists in that crowd that quite sour the mix. If they had dropped the racist talk early on Trump's support would be 10 points higher now. Progressives and Independents hate the Deep State as much as the Know-nothings do, which you could see in the Occupy movement that coined the whole 99% vs. the 1% meme that has echoed since.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:05PM
The Republican party has gone the way of the Whigs, and good riddance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:26PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:27PM
I thought that he showed up at the daughter's wedding - uninvited. He may have gone to Hitlery's wedding, but I don't recall reading that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:42PM
> virtually no mention of any third party candidates in the main stream media.
Speak for yourself, our newspaper (owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Buffet's company) has had regular coverage of the 3rd party candidates. Nothing like the column inches for Rep & Dem, but something every few days.
Print may be "dead", but I find that paying for the newspaper, which in turn employs professional reporters, is a good investment. With free online news, you get what you pay for...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:38PM
When that story first came out, I thought that one would sting Trump. It has. But my wife and I have been living in a self-imposed media blackout through this election so I haven't followed anything closely. Then a couple weeks later it was that I heard he said those things on a Howard Stern show. Has anyone ever said anything appropriate or respectful about women on a Howard Stern show? Raunchy frat-boy antics is the whole point of that show, so of course Trump would have said things like that in that context. Does that make what he said (or did) OK? No, but for me it took all the shock value out of what he said.
If it came out that Hillary gave an interview to an underground dyke 'zine wherein she described doing inappropriate things with women, it would make sense because that's the kind of thing that dyke 'zines talk about.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:42PM
I mean come on, who goes to a baby chimp-eating party and then DOESN'T eat baby chimps?
So that makes it OK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:56PM
Ah, so "They" are behind it? What a relieve. I already feared THEY would be involved!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:25PM
"They" (at the risk of sounding like Dale Gribble) wanted Clinton in charge from day one and had to find someone that wouldn't get too many votes from those that would not want to vote for a woman, but still appear to get popular votes, while easily controlled at the last minute.
Oh please. No elaborate, post-facto conspiracy theory needed.
It was rigged for Trump because he got eyeballs which means ad dollars. They literally gave him billions of dollars [marketwatch.com] of free, positive [politico.com] media coverage because people lapped it up. And this was no secret, the head of CBS even said it in public:
"It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS,"
— Les Moonves on Trump coverage in a speech at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/les-moonves-trump-cbs-220001 [politico.com]
He got away with so much bullshit because no one took him seriously. Once he was taken seriously, he got the kind of serious scrutiny that any serious candidate would get. This is the same effect that happens to 3rd party candidates, they sound great because they get to talk uncontested. Anybody can look good if they aren't challenged, its like running a 100 meter race by yourself -- you always come in first. But under the glare of the spotlight, they wilt (Jill Stein's incoherent claims about quantative easing, Gary Johnson's multiple foreign policy flubs, etc). They were always weak candidates, but nobody noticed their weaknesses because nobody cared enough to really vet them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:55PM
Ah yes, the profit motive. I have a bridge here, its a toll bridge and if you buy it you will make your money back ten fold!
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:04PM
This is why the MSM won't talk about the WikiLeaks emails. There are several in there that discuss who the "best" Republican candidate would be for Hillary ("Best" as in the easiest to lambast and defeat). They even talked about Trump as a good one, and the emails were before Trump even announced his candidacy.
Combine that with the leaks the demonstrate the friendly connections between DNC operatives and MSM anchors / reporters (including actually feeding Hillary the questioned planned for a debate), and it's easy to see how they could manipulate the narrative to help Trump get the nomination.
It's hard to believe that any other GOP candidate could possibly be losing to Hillary, she is so hated by so many people, so obviously corrupt, in such shaky health.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:40PM
I'm a New Yorker. Everyone in the NYC area knew ALL ABOUT how Trump treated women, because his misbehavior and mistresses and divorces were in the tabloids - and even the TV news - for decades thanks to his celebrity in the city (well before his national celebrity on TV).
I think it was Asimov who wrote a story about the "none of the above" election. I wish it were a choice on the ballot.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:10PM
Richard Pryor did the same in Brewster's Millions as well. Highly recommended flick.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:05PM
I think your argument is self defeating if you consider the logic behind it. The Clinton campaign is going to completely unprecedented lengths and the media is bending themselves over backwards - all to try to defeat Trump. The Clinton campaign and the media are doing what will likely be irreparable damage to confidence in our government and trust in our media respectively. If Trump was intentionally chosen to be an ineffective candidate, the great extremes they're going to would be completely unnecessary.
Now it's possible to argue that Hillary and her advisers simply have no clue what they're doing and were totally wrong but I don't think that's the case. Populist outsider or non-establishment messages have been resonating very sharply with both parties in no small part thanks to Obama. Trump is riding the same momentum that Sanders was and this has been fairly clear since day 1. Another issue is that I don't think they could have ever estimated how disliked Hillary would be. Not long ago when nobody knew anything about her other than she was Bill's wife and secretary of state, she had an approval rating near 70% meaning she was transcending even partisanship. They would have had every reasonable expectation that she wouldn't need special treatment and hand holding to be able to win.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 21 2016, @12:04AM
They might havehad an inkling after the reaction to her comment about staying home and baking cookies.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday October 21 2016, @02:52AM
Personally, I think Trump was put there in order to run some of the more moderate Republican candidates out of the primarily such as Rubio and Christie, paving the way for someone like Cruz to get the nomination. Having Trump actually win the nomination wasn't something they actually expected to happen. For a while, it did look like Trump had decided to abandon the plan and was actually going for the win. Now I don't know what he's trying to do.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:25PM
How many people in America today would refuse to vote for a woman? Fifty years ago, the number was high - probably 70% or more. Thirty years ago, the number was much lower - maybe 40%. Today? The percentage is less than the percentage of Black or the percentage of Latino voters. Maybe 10% of America would definitely NOT vote for a woman, under any circumstances.
What we are seeing is, at least half of America is unwilling to vote for THIS WOMAN. And, at least half of America is unwilling to vote for HER OPPONENT.
These are the most divisive candidates that have run against each other in a long, long time. Separately and jointly, they destroy any unity this country might have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @03:52AM
> How many people in America today would refuse to vote for a woman? [for President]
While I think your numbers were pulled out of your ass, it would be interesting if there were any large-sample, well run polls on this topic. Better yet, if they were re-run a number of times over the last decades. And better still if they were run during non-election years when emotions were not running high.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 21 2016, @01:49PM
Yes, indeed, I pulled the numbers out of my ass. Basically, from personal experience. My parent's generation, my grandparent's generation, my own generation, and today's generation. The numbers are dropping.
In my lifetime, we have seen a number of females in high office, both here and in the UK. Several times, the women have proven to have more balls than the panty waists they displaced. I have absolutely no objection to a female in any office. None. I only expect that she be QUALIFIED for that office.
In this case, Clinton has done enough to disqualify her from holding any public office, anywhere, ever. She's a criminal. I wouldn't feel any differently if she were male - she's a criminal. Hillary for prison, 2016!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @05:31PM
Same AC. I'll keep watching for the "right" poll or opinion survey about female presidents. Pulled from my ass--my circle of friends including parent's generation would have mostly been happy with a female president back as far as the 1970s (which is about as far as I can go, graduated high school early 70s). We were really happy in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was the first female vice presidential candidate from a major party...although she and Mondale didn't stand much of a chance against Reagan-Bush.
Looking from upstate NY, we may have a better vantage point for the two current candidates? It's rare that both parties put up candidates with a heavy background from NY and NY City.
+ Hillary was our senator and did a good job for the state. From what I read, it seems like all the "criminal" things you mention (ad infinitum...) have all been blown out of proportion by media and many others looking for skeletons in the closet. Of course all pols are dirty, we expect that, she seems no better or worse in this respect than many before her. To her credit, she's survived media snooping for many years now.
+ Trump has done his best to take advantage of everything and everyone that he could, for his whole career. I've posted about this before, he is like all the real estate developers I've ever had any contact with, *totally* self-interested. If your house was in the way of one of his projects, he'd be working on some way to take your property by eminent domain.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nobu_the_bard on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:53PM
The system is rigged but it's not deceitful. I don't think it's "fraud". It's designed to make you think there can't be another way is all.
The presidential debates only have the Republican and Democratic candidates, even though there are four candidates. Is that because the other two don't have as much support? Only partially. It is because the company funding the "national debates" is jointly owned by the Republican and Democratic parties. Even if one of the other parties was more popular, without the money to buy a share in that company, you don't get to participate in the "national debates" (I assume if you had enough money, they'd let you try your hand).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @01:38PM
If project veritas has such good stuff,
their message would be stronger if they edited their video to just simply lay out the facts.
Instead, they ofsucatated things by hopping from one partial story to another to make things more sensational.
The result makes me wonder if they are nut cases or actually have a case.
I suspect a bit of both, but if they would clean up their act, they might have more impact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:07PM
For an audience of a somewhat more refined palate, I generally agree with you.
However, considering George Carlin's Observations on Average People, the two videos released are pretty well suited for the general populace. Remember, O'Keefe has promised more to come, which one would hope would include a lot more meat for the refined types to go along with the already-revealed bait.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:58PM
> The result makes me wonder if they are nut cases or actually have a case.
So, I went looking for opposing viewpoints. Turns out they've got a long history of shady-as-fuck games.
Here's an absurdly long list of their shenanigans. [mediamatters.org] Yeah, mediamatters, blah, blah, blah. But whatever you think about MM's objectivity, they are meticulous in the sourcing of their criticisms.
Like the time he released a video showing an ACORN staffer supporting child prostitution when in fact the guy immediately reported the encounter to the police, and the two main people behind veritas ended up owing the staffer $150,000 for libel. [mediamatters.org]
Or the time they released a video of themselves committing voter fraud using the registration of a dead person, but the un-edited video revealed they actually used the registration of a living person. [mediamatters.org] Veritas learned their lesson from that one - they no longer release the unedited videos ("Project Veritas does not release raw or unedited tapes or reporters’ notes of investigations" [themessinglink.com])
But if anything MM touches is just too untrustworthy, then look to some of FAIR's coverage:
NBC Still Doesn’t Know About O’Keefe’s ACORN Hoax [fair.org]
NPR Unstung? Once Again, O’Keefe Shows He Shouldn’t Be Trusted [fair.org]
What we ought to be asking is why the mighty buzzard would hold project veritas up as an example of trustworthy reporting being ignored by the mainstream media. How many times does someone get to cry wolf before they are no longer taken at face value?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:51PM
Remember, James O'Keefe and company didn't just produce the videos indicating support for underage prositution at ONE Acorn location, but at multiple Acorn locations. The possibility that O'Keefe screwed up in regards to one person he accused is indeed a valid and serious concern, but not something which can then be used to wave away all the other people who did indeed acknowledge O'Keefe's claimed underage prostitution ring, advised him to keep a lid on it, and then didn't call the cops afterwards.
(Laws forbidding activities between consenting adults in particular are both immoral, and in the USA, illegal. Kidnapping people and/or keeping them as involuntary sex slaves is another matter entirely: evil to the core.)
I also don't give a rat's ass about laws claiming to forbid recording a private conversation that the person making the recording is known to be participating in, since the person is already making a recording of it with their own brain. Particularly when corruption is thick, actual raw data can be used to avoid a he-said-she-said connundrum.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:13PM
> The possibility that O'Keefe screwed up in regards to one person he accused is indeed a valid and serious concern, but not something which can then be used to wave away
Calling it a "screw up" is deceptive. The guy deliberately went overboard with misleading editing. The $150,000 of judgment against him is just the most clearcut proof of his malfeasance with ACORN. It isn't about eyes being tightly closed, its about an extensive track record of purposeful deception. He is literally everything the extreme right accuses the lamestream media of being, turned up to 11 and lacking all the other boringly accurate reporting that lamestream media does on a daily basis. Reputation matters and the reputation he has built for himself is that he's not just unreliable, he's an outright liar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:30PM
It's like a shoplifter who drops a dime on the mob's best hitman: even if the messenger has unclean hands, the message may be of grave importance. However...
O'Keefe didn't give ACORN even one red cent due to a judgement or settlement. There was a $100k settlement paid by O'Keefe to one former employee of ACORN [mediamatters.org] who was fired after the release of the videos, perhaps unjustly as the settlement suggests. That alone negates none of the other recordings of ACORN people who acknowledged the supposed underaged sex trafficking ring and didn't do anything about it, nor the ones who actually gave advice to keep it quiet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:59PM
That alone negates none of the other recordings of ACORN people who acknowledged the supposed underaged sex trafficking ring and didn't do anything about it, nor the ones who actually gave advice to keep it quiet.
Sorry, no free pass on that. The raw videos have not been released. The edited videos clearly have cuts and even obvious over-dubs. It is convincing, if you want to be convinced. But that's about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:04PM
Of course there's cuts and overdubs in edited video. You seem to be claiming that O'Keefe made up the claims in the ACORN videos out of whole cloth. Well, I learned something today that I didn't know before: ACORN was destroyed by the videos. ACORN closed down because almost all of its funding both government and private ceased, and the only thing that came back to bite O'Keefe was the ONE settlement (emphatically not a judgement) with a single ex-ACORN employee, and some massively-corrupt garbage from California about it being "illegal" to record a conversation you are directly involved in without all-party consent.
Just as the $100k settlement signals there being something amiss with O'Keefe's presentation of the single ex-ACORN employee, so does the near instantaneous collapse of an entire nation-spanning "community organizing" group which originated in the 1970s. Something was quite likely rotten.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:38PM
> You seem to be claiming that O'Keefe made up the claims in the ACORN videos out of whole cloth.
Half-cloth.
> Just as the $100k settlement signals there being something amiss with O'Keefe's presentation of the single ex-ACORN employee,
> so does the near instantaneous collapse of an entire nation-spanning "community organizing" group which originated in the 1970s.
> Something was quite likely rotten.
No, not even close. The $150k in judgments was the result of a hearing of the evidence in two courts of law. The cutting off of public funding was the result of hearing half-truths in the court of public opinion. The fact that you think congress reacting to a tidal wave of reporting a false narrative is proof that the narrative was actually true shows just how low your standard of proof is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:55PM
You seem to have an aversion to truth.
As I wrote and provided a citation before [soylentnews.org], James O'Keefe paid a $100,000 settlement to one ex-ACORN employee. (Another $50k was paid to the same ex-employee by O'Keefe's partner.) A settlement is reached before a court can make a judgement, even though it is commonly thought that settlements are usually paid because it is expected that a court finding will result in a loss and possibly a higher judgement. By your own standard now, no one should believe anything else you have to say.
As far as Congress, Congress doesn't listen to anyone unless they want to. Two hundred to one (on the low end) contacted their congressional "representitives" to demand that the TARP bailouts not be implemented, and for the private organizations that stood to lose out on bad deals be made to eat their own losses. Congress ignored the people they claim to represent and paid off their cronies. No, if the criminally-incestuous nest of government fraud, waste, and abuse drops a socialist organization like a hot potato, there was very likely a reason beyond the "reaction to a tidal wave of reporting a false narrative". That ACORN is still a dead, smoking hole in the ground years later is quite telling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:12PM
(Replying to myself to keep the thread intact [soylentnews.org])
According to a source hostile to O'Keefe [thinkprogress.org], the settlement (called a settlement from your own source) was in regards to O'Keefe recording the conversation between O'Keefe and the ex-ACORN employee, something California claims to be "illegal". The same source also claims that the raw footage of the ACORN sting was indeed given to California's Attorney General's office, so while I still know of no raw ACORN video you nor I can access, the "authorities" most certainly had it.
1. Not a judgement
2. Raw video possessed by CA AG
3. "Reputation matters [soylentnews.org]", and your reputation ain't looking good right now even when using your own sources. Judgement is harsh when it bites your own ass, eh?
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:28PM
The raw videos have not been released.
They have, quite some time ago. They are easy to find [projectveritas.com].
If you weren't buying into every lie MSNBC and CNN feeds you, maybe you could have found them yourself instead of making a fool of yourself.
The CA DOJ also released them a while back, but they've been taken down.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:23PM
I can't be arsed to watch American political videos, it gives me stomach pain.
So one factoid TMB gave was that a mr. Scott Foval was bragging that he disrupts Trump rallies and he commits mass voter fraud.
Missing piece of information is: is mr. Scott Foval in any way related to the US Democratic Party, or to the Clintons?
Maybe the answer to that was "Americans United for Change" but I have never heard of that organisation and can't find it on Wikipedia either.
Maybe George Soros hired Scott Foval,
to infiltrate in Trump's campaign,
to infiltrate in Clinton's campaign,
to disrupt Trump's campaign,
to put the blame on Clinton,
to put the blame on Trump.
(What's that called? Seventh Column [wikipedia.org]?)
You know, Occam's Gordian Knot and all that. I'm sure it makes perfect sense in some way.
Anyway, I believe that disrupting someone's political campaign shows a disrespect for democracy. Even pie-throwing. TMB made it sound like Scott Foval and Robert Creamer are assholes.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:29PM
Oh, I forgot:
Thank you The Mighty Buzzard, for trying to improve the level of discussion of the US election.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:13PM
Cheers but any discussion we have here is going to be above-par in relation to most of the rest of the nation. We just have that good of a community.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:43PM
Huh. First result from a google was their web site [americansunitedforchange.org]. I'd link Foval's LinkedIn page so you could see his affiliations, but it's been deleted.
Missing piece of information is: is mr. Scott Foval in any way related to the US Democratic Party, or to the Clintons?
Americans United for Change is a "Super PAC" that supports Clinton's election. Super PAC status means that can take in and spend as much money as they want, any way they please, without disclosing their donors. Because of campaign finance laws, a PAC cannot legally have any official affiliation with a political campaign of any candidate for office. They can spend their money in support of the candidate, however, as long as they don't "coordinate" with the campaign. Part of what the videos show is that the PAC was, in fact, coordinating in a loose way with the DNC and the Clinton campaign by having consultants on payroll that were also consultants on the payroll of either the DNC and/or the Hillary campaign.
TMB made it sound like Scott Foval and Robert Creamer are assholes.
Most political operatives (of both parties) are assholes. The back-stabbing and turncoat tactics that politics often employs breeds people like that.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:26PM
Any large political org is going to have over-enthusiastic rogues. If you want a "real" conspiracy, you need to show that the top decision makers of the org ordered them to carry out the bad acts.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by WillR on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:25PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:32PM
The editors are fools.
Last time fake political news was posted there was actually a mea culpa from one of the editors who then said they were going to just avoid the topic of politics all together.
But here we are again. Buzzard got to slip his political bullshit in by (a) claiming it wasn't political and (b) couching it as media criticism. But holy jesus fuck, the guy is nakedly transparent. How anyone could believe that anything buzzard says that is even remotely near politics isn't all about his politics is beyond me. He's one of the most political people here, he's even outright said he considers it his job to crusade against everyone he disagrees with. At what point do reputations start to matter?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:06PM
It's not "just Buzzard". If I hadn't seen a similar story regarding the new Project Veritas videos already in the queue (and I don't recall Buzzard's name on it), I'd have submitted one.
Being ignorant and wrong is just an unfortunate part of being human. Fraud, thuggery, and willful lying are things a great deal of people rightly hate, and when one of the lying sonsabitches gets caught dead to rights, we want to see that ball of jell-o nailed to the wall before it gets to work actually doing all the "wonderful" things it was talking about doing to us against our will should it have the chance.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:18PM
I'm not sure.
Whether buzzard is very biased or not (I think he is) does not mean that he hasn't found an interesting article to discuss.
I just lack the background information in American politics to follow who's saying what about whom, here.
I think you (Americans) are all screwed because Duverger's law forced you to choose between Scylla and Charybdis [wikipedia.org]. You should turn your boat far to the port side and elect Jill Stein (see, I can be biased too :-)).
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 22 2016, @07:32AM
Thanks, it is always nice to feel appreciated. /sarcasm.
Our role here is not that of a traditional editor - we cannot be experts in every topic nor can we invest many man hours of effort in checking out the veracity of every link in a submission. We, like everyone else here are volunteers, with lives to lead and real world issues to deal with. We do confirm that links point to reputable sites and that they display the information that the submitter claims that they do, we clean up formatting, we try to balance our output in terms of content and we do try to remove bias from submissions. Politics however, is not science. Everyone has their own view on political issues and we know that this and similar topics will have to contain something in the submission that will make it contentious to a proportion of our community.
The site depends entirely on the community that it serves. We expect, and usually receive, enough reasonably well presented submissions to get by - although not enough to sit back and be comfortable. We have to resort to 'bots from time to time (e.g. Arthur T Knackerbracket) to find stories that we can use when we would otherwise run out of material, and I accept that those submissions are sometimes not as well researched as those from the members of our community. The editor in such cases has to try to be both submitter and editor but we really do not have sufficient resources to do that as well as any of us would like. But the onus is very much on the submitter to do the bulk of the work.
Buzzard did not bypass the submissions process, he did not receive special treatment from the editors. Whether you like the way the discussion has progressed or not, it has to be acknowledged that the story has received many more times the number of comments of any other story published recently. Some found it interesting and, if we discount the trolling and mud slinging comments, there is still a good amount of intelligent discussion regarding the subject.
If you note, I did not take part in the editorial process of this story - I will avoid the topic of politics as much as I possibly can. Nevertheless, I have to do my job and might, in the future, be the only editor on duty when a political story has to go out.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:56PM
It is what buzzy sent in, it's not SN's "editorial direction". Go elsewhere if you want an echo chamber.
(Score: 2) by WillR on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:38PM
If he's not, I'll withdraw my criticism.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:16PM
Dev all the time.
Admin when it can't be avoided.
Editor only when I'm posting site changelogs/RFCs and even those I run past actual editors.
No monetary stake, leadership position, or ownership of SN whatsoever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:58PM
This may seem like a pseudo-proTrump story but don't take it that way. Lets all start getting upset at the fraud being more and more openly perpetrated against us. If you don't live in the US, well, you can just go fucking laugh at us and then fund my bar tab at www.beerandacopyofTHHGTTG.plz
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:19PM
If anyone thinks it's pro-Trump, that certainly wasn't my intention. I'm of the firm opinion that he's a dipshit. Unfortunately I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hillary is a criminal because I get my news from outside the MSM. I wouldn't vote for either if my left testicle were on the line.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:40PM
http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=alt_news_sucks [xmission.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:18PM
Yup, directly reading the Podesta emails has no newsworthy value whatsoever. Idjit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:54PM
Your post made a metric fuckton of assumptions because of your preconceived notions. You're an indoctrinated asshole and you don't even realize it. I pity you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday October 22 2016, @12:44AM
Assuming that's true, there's still the difference that I actively seek the truth while you take what's fed to you. Your brain, try using it once in a while.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday October 21 2016, @05:46PM
It wasn't aimed at you, I was trying to calm down the partisan reactions. It was inspired by some comment that took it as a shot against Clinton.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 21 2016, @06:48PM
Fair nuff. *tips hat*
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:24PM
Project Veritas' bona fides are absolutely suspect [mediamatters.org].
However, if they have actually run into something *verifiable* then Foval, et. al should be prosecuted, not just fired.
Full disclosure: I will vote for Clinton, not because I particularly like her, but because, of the candidates/parties that actually have a chance to win, the policies she (she actually has them, too) and the Democratic party are closest to what I actually would like to see.
What's more, the office of the president, while powerful, is not the absolute monarchy that some make it out to be.
The separation of powers in the US constitution makes it difficult to bring wholesale change to Federal laws and policies without the clear support (i.e., strong majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as occupancy of the White House all by one party) of a large coalition of voters across the country.
In addition, any changes to the constitution must have 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress *and* ratification by 2/3 of state legislatures.
This was by design, and a good thing too IMHO.
All that said, given the decentralized nature of the US electoral systems, it seems unlikely that any of this stuff could be done on a level that could actually sway a national (or even state-wide) election.
This discussion [c-span.org] points up the reasons why.
tl;dw: There are thousands of electoral authorities and hundreds of thousands of polling places in the US. Voting is so hyper-local that many poll workers know most of the voters in their districts. I can speak to that, as I usually either know or recognize the poll workers where I vote (and I live in one of the largest cities in the US). Given the decentralized management (at state, county, municipal and community levels) of elections in the US, any conspiracy to "rig" a national election would require a conspiracy of thousands, if not tens of thousands. Not bloody likely, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday October 20 2016, @08:46PM
You can't impugn the reputation of Project Veritas by sourcing Media Matters. It's like saying Hillary Clinton is a liar because Donald Trump said so.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:59PM
You can't impugn the reputation of Project Veritas by sourcing Media Matters. It's like saying Hillary Clinton is a liar because Donald Trump said so.
That was just the first link that came up in a web search. I imagine you'd say the same thing about any other link I used. Good for you. We're all duly impressed by your intellectual prowess.
Regardless of whether they're unfairly maligned combatants in the never-ending battlle for Truth, Justice, And The American Way™ or just a bunch of opportunistic scumbags who've hitched their wagon to the "conservative" universe, it's really irrelevant. The issues are two-fold, IMHO. Firstly, either there's evidence [wikipedia.org] to back up the claims made, or there isn't. Secondly, whether there's evidence or not, is it actually possible to "rig" a national election?
If actual evidence of specific illegal acts exists, which at least for the first two videos (and yes, I did watch them) contains just Foval (and from what I can tell, that footage was taken prior to the 2016 election cycle) bragging about what a badass he is, and discussions of what could be done. Even the "smoking gun" of one guy "rigging" the latino vote, was just talk about what *could* be done in 2018, not what *is* going on in this election cycle -- if there's actual evidence, then some people need to go to jail.
What's more, none of these folks (Foval, O'Keefe, et. al) can claim any sort of moral high ground. They may be on different sides, but they're cut from the same cloth, and (IMHO) should be roundly criticized for their lack of ethics and contempt for our system of government.
As much of the rest of my comment pointed out, it's *really* hard to rig an election in the US.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Thursday October 20 2016, @10:29PM
I imagine you'd say the same thing about any other link I used.
No, I said that because Media Matters is a hyper-partisan propaganda site, created by Soros funding. And I don't believe your "Oh, I'm innocent I didn't know what media matters was" bullshit.
We're all duly impressed by your intellectual prowess.
I don't know who all you're attempting to represent, here. Certainly you should be impressed, as your flailing, inept attempt at writing gives insight to your intellectual deficits.
As much of the rest of my comment pointed out, it's *really* hard to rig an election in the US.
Maybe. There are certainly some difficult aspects. But if you've ever been involved in politics (I have, intimately, for a couple of cycles, 1/10 would not do again), you understand that there is actually a very small proportion of people that actually matter in any election. For a presidential election, we already know the swing states, we know the swing counties in those swing states. With a good ground game, you will know the swing precincts in those swing counties. So you're not actually rigging the whole national election. Just the .01% of precincts that will actually decide the outcome in a very close election...
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 21 2016, @12:17AM
Yeah, that's correct. You can even drill down to who the key influencers are in those precincts. You get those people, and you can win a lot of contests for the cost of a deep data dive.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday October 21 2016, @12:33AM
Identifying those folks and even talking with them isn't "rigging" an election. That's an integral part of what's termed the "ground game." Are you asseting that there is something corrupt or illegal in doing so?
I suppose you could offer those people money or threaten their families. Which would be both corrupt *and* illegal.
Just to clarify, are you claiming that national elections are routinely fixed?
If so, I'd love to see *evidence* because that kind of shit should have folks in federal PMITA prison.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday October 21 2016, @12:07PM
And, doesn't that just *scream* to you, that the first-past-the-post voting system is undemocratic? One swing precinct voter == 10 000 ordinary votes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:55PM
It's even more strict than you have stated--sorta.
any changes to the constitution must have 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress *and* ratification by 2/3 of state legislatures.
For starters, the second "2/3" is incorrect.
Treaties and presidential nominations must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate.
To override a presidential veto requires a 2/3 vote of both chambers.
Now, the federal legislature can **propose** an amendment by a 2/3 majority of both chambers -OR- it can call for a constitutional convention after that has been requested by 2/3 of the states.
The number needed to amend the constitution is 3/4 of state legislatures -OR- 3/4 of all the states via a constitutional convention .
...and there's a limited time allowed between the first state legislature ratifying the amendment and getting 75 percent on board.
(The Equal Rights Amendment, as an example, failed on that last point.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday October 21 2016, @02:34AM
This still comes down to voting for a piece of shit or a piece of shit.
The only problem is the media is trying to Febreze Clinton and make her smell good enough for the stupid to vote for.
But still: shit is shit. And Clinton(s) ARE shit... corrupt shit. (Trump is stupid shit).
Go America! Vote shit or vote shit!!
Make America great again!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---