SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.