Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
Really don't even care.
He's at National Enquirer level "ignore this shit until someone else corroborates it" level
Ignore the National Enquirer? When a no less prestigious journalist than Sean Hannity lends it credence?!
National Inquirer busted Edwards' affair.
That's terrific but they're BS 99% of the time so I ignore them till someone else corroborates
O'Keefe doesn't even qualify as a source even a biased one
Which is great if you never venture outside the bubble but sometimes you have to talk and persuade folks who aren't super libby liberals and so actually rebutting the story that came with sexy (edited) video is something I would like to be able to do.
But both men also put Donald Trump in the room with cocaine, very young women and underage girls, and rich, old men there to—pardon my language, but if the Times can say pussy on its front page, I can say this—fuck them.
Young models were attracted to the fêtes with a simple, time-tested pitch. “You’ll meet rich guys who will help you,” says the photographer. “It was networking, but on a weird, bizarre scale.”
The girls were as young as 15, he says, and “over their heads, they had no idea, and they ended up in situations. There were always dramas because the men threw money and drugs at them to keep them enticed. It’s based on power and dominating girls who can’t push back and can be discarded. There’s always someone to pick them back up. Nobody wants to call home and say ‘Help me.’”
Trump would “go from room to room,” said the photographer, who added that “I was there to party myself. It was guys with younger girls, sex, a lot of sex, a lot of cocaine, top-shelf liquor” but no smoking. Trump didn’t approve of cigarettes.
Those men at these parties often knew each other. “It’s a small community,” the photographer says. “They exchanged information, facilitated each other. Trump was in and out. He’d wander off with a couple girls. I saw him. He was getting laid like crazy. Trump was at the heart of it. He loved the attention and in private, he was a total fucking beast.”
But did he have sex with his female party guests? “So, he’s a man with a woman,” Lucchesi says vaguely. How old were they? “A lot of girls, 14, look 24. That’s as juicy as I can get. I never asked how old they were; I just partook. I did partake in activities that would be controversial, too.”
Yeah, I'll be treating this with exactly as much skepticism as the O'Keefe shit, tyvm
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
1) Theres no real evidence hillary directly ordered the ducks, which is the only potentially illegal contentious thing.
2) News orgs back when the ducks were being reported on were reporting it was the DNC behind the ducks, not a super-pac, which wouldn't be illegal.
3) Even if its 100% true and Hillary ordered the ducks, who gives a shit.
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
Edit: Just to be clear and reiterate, I'm just left of center and have voted Democrat a bit more than Republican iin my lifetime.
Didn't Donald Trump get more votes than any other candidate in Republican party history? How is that the fringe of the party?
He did, but in the same way that Titanic earned more than Gone With The Wind. The population has grown, so any nominal number will grow with it. He never had more than plurality support.
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
I've mentioned this before but O'Keefe is a Rutgers alum (graduated before I went there) and while I never met the guy personally there was a conservative dude in my lil political science for baby tots program who straight up worked for Breitbart (while the man himself was still alive) and was friends with O'Keefe and Lila Rose
From my friend of a friend knowledge I can definitively say he is a juvenile asshole who never grew out of the College Republican impulse to provoke the sensitive liberal reactions that surely bubble beneath the surface of his peers and isn't above shameless distortion and outright lying to do it
that conservative dude in my class btw? He's a hardcore #NeverTrump now and despises Bannon
The Republican party and nominee are where they are because they are only listening to their fringe. It's a sham of a party right now that does not represent the right that I know. And I'm from Alabama.
The only people on the right that I know irl that are gonna vote Trump think it's a necessary evil because of the Supreme Court nominations. The majority of them are not gonna vote Trump at all. I haven't heard from a single person irl on the right who is cool with the rhetoric from Trump.
True Trump supporters who would resort to violence over a tshirt or a duck costume are very much fringe right.
Edit: Just to be clear and reiterate, I'm just left of center and have voted Democrat a bit more than Republican iin my lifetime.
Didn't Donald Trump get more votes than any other candidate in Republican party history? How is that the fringe of the party?
He did, but in the same way that Titanic earned more than Gone With The Wind. The population has grown, so any nominal number will grow with it. He never had more than plurality support.
Also because the election went on so long there were more votes that were meaningfully contested so had high turnout. In part because they tried to make the primary less front loaded.
Failing to find evidence of her wrongdoing is the same as finding evidence, in fact its worse because it proves she covered up the evidence
+16
Options
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Also, CNN posted an interview from 1990 with Trump where he goes off on the media in the same way he does today. He then gets annoyed with one of the interviewer's questions and walks off. The main difference I see in 1990 Trump is that he actually admits to being thin skinned, whereas today I imagine he'd say "No, I have incredibly thick skin. No one has skin as thick as me!"
After he walks out, the interviewer's producer(?) just sorta grins and shrugs in amusement.
Hold on now. Trump isn't a Sith. Sith use their passion and anger intelligently to gain power. They don't rave and tweet at 3am.
Thank you.
I dunno I've played SWTOR
the sith lost the war because they couldn't stop lightsabering each other in the back, sometimes literally while fighting the enemy
the smartest sith in the whole of the Star Wars lore is the sith apprentice on korriban studying evil dogs because nobody's going to lightsaber you to get that position
Ugh, it's like the plantation owner taking a visitor out to the fields to ask the slaves if they're happy.
Trump's tactic of getting poor whites on his side by turning them against poor blacks is a time honored tradition that goes back to that slave owners manual where they instructed masters to cultivate an image that they were the best master, so slaves would get in actual fights with slaves from other plantations over who's master was the best
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
Really don't even care.
He's at National Enquirer level "ignore this shit until someone else corroborates it" level
Ignore the National Enquirer? When a no less prestigious journalist than Sean Hannity lends it credence?!
National Inquirer busted Edwards' affair.
That's terrific but they're BS 99% of the time so I ignore them till someone else corroborates
O'Keefe doesn't even qualify as a source even a biased one
Which is great if you never venture outside the bubble but sometimes you have to talk and persuade folks who aren't super libby liberals and so actually rebutting the story that came with sexy (edited) video is something I would like to be able to do.
The problem is that debunking it is really difficult beyond "he is famous for deceptively editing videos to the point they look super convincing" because, well, they look convincing!
You could point out how only one person directly mentioned Hillary wanting something, or how the questions being asked aren't shown with context provided by O'Keefe, or how the same answers are played repeatedly to fill space and seem linked to O'Keefe's narrative, but all that requires accepting O'Keefe is a liar to look damning. If you are unwilling to accept "O'Keefe has a history of lying" then it's easy to deflect.
I tried to google the name of that slave owners manual and I ended up on an alt right racist as fuck site and I'm on a work computer
Thankfully this one isn't that hard to explain should I get dragged into an office
I like how this implies this has happened before with other ones that were harder to explain.
"Look, I was just googling Excel shortcuts and the next thing I know there was a bunch of MLP hentai in front of me, I don't know!"
+12
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Yeah, I don't know how much you can argue against what they saw with their own two eyes. For example, there's a Business Insider article saying that even if the Donald Duck video is legit, it's not showing anything illegal, but then it becomes bad because whatever man just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
For the previous video, the facts that he's not releasing unedited footage and was paid by the Trump campaign are something something.
I don't even know what the latest one is about other than "mass voter fraud."
Anybody seen a write up of why this latest O'Keefe video is bullshit rather just than on general terms? Like I know he's refusing to release unedited video which is a big part of why all the networks are ignoring him but I was wondering if any more detail about that silliness came out.
The supposed DNC operative is not on payroll at the DNC but does work for Brietbart.
Trump is accused by many women of rape, several of whom have witnesses, and he's been caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault.
Hillary may or may not have had a guy dressed up as Donald Duck go to a Trump rally.
Both sides are the same, vote Johnson, etc etc
Didn't Bill Clinton famously have a bunch of people in chicken costumes go to Bush rallies because he wouldn't debate?
Why does a dude in a donald costume matter at all?
It shouldn't - peaceful protest of political rallies is a mainstay of American politics.
But because Trump supporters are quick to resort to violence against dissent, there's been outcry that it's somehow unfair to "provoke" violent retaliation by protesting peacefully at Trump events.
Trump is accused by many women of rape, several of whom have witnesses, and he's been caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault.
Hillary may or may not have had a guy dressed up as Donald Duck go to a Trump rally.
Both sides are the same, vote Johnson, etc etc
Didn't Bill Clinton famously have a bunch of people in chicken costumes go to Bush rallies because he wouldn't debate?
Why does a dude in a donald costume matter at all?
It shouldn't - peaceful protest of political rallies is a mainstay of American politics.
But because Trump supporters are quick to resort to violence against dissent, there's been outcry that it's somehow unfair to "provoke" violent retaliation by protesting peacefully at Trump events.
Posts
Which is great if you never venture outside the bubble but sometimes you have to talk and persuade folks who aren't super libby liberals and so actually rebutting the story that came with sexy (edited) video is something I would like to be able to do.
Yeah, I'll be treating this with exactly as much skepticism as the O'Keefe shit, tyvm
When they have mobs, you flashmob!
1) Theres no real evidence hillary directly ordered the ducks, which is the only potentially illegal contentious thing.
2) News orgs back when the ducks were being reported on were reporting it was the DNC behind the ducks, not a super-pac, which wouldn't be illegal.
3) Even if its 100% true and Hillary ordered the ducks, who gives a shit.
wow a flashmob is it 2006 again??
joking aside I love the actual dancer in the middle werk werk angelicaaa
NNID: Hakkekage
He did, but in the same way that Titanic earned more than Gone With The Wind. The population has grown, so any nominal number will grow with it. He never had more than plurality support.
From my friend of a friend knowledge I can definitively say he is a juvenile asshole who never grew out of the College Republican impulse to provoke the sensitive liberal reactions that surely bubble beneath the surface of his peers and isn't above shameless distortion and outright lying to do it
that conservative dude in my class btw? He's a hardcore #NeverTrump now and despises Bannon
NNID: Hakkekage
Also because the election went on so long there were more votes that were meaningfully contested so had high turnout. In part because they tried to make the primary less front loaded.
My Backloggery
Um, obviously.
If they found evidence then she wouldn't have been corrupt enough to hide it.
After he walks out, the interviewer's producer(?) just sorta grins and shrugs in amusement.
My Backloggery
Now you're thinking with Gringich
I dunno I've played SWTOR
the sith lost the war because they couldn't stop lightsabering each other in the back, sometimes literally while fighting the enemy
the smartest sith in the whole of the Star Wars lore is the sith apprentice on korriban studying evil dogs because nobody's going to lightsaber you to get that position
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Apparently tomorrow they are doing the same thing at a hotel of his.
The modern "I am not racist. I have a black maid."
Trump's tactic of getting poor whites on his side by turning them against poor blacks is a time honored tradition that goes back to that slave owners manual where they instructed masters to cultivate an image that they were the best master, so slaves would get in actual fights with slaves from other plantations over who's master was the best
He knows he's lost this is all theater
Thankfully this one isn't that hard to explain should I get dragged into an office
The problem is that debunking it is really difficult beyond "he is famous for deceptively editing videos to the point they look super convincing" because, well, they look convincing!
You could point out how only one person directly mentioned Hillary wanting something, or how the questions being asked aren't shown with context provided by O'Keefe, or how the same answers are played repeatedly to fill space and seem linked to O'Keefe's narrative, but all that requires accepting O'Keefe is a liar to look damning. If you are unwilling to accept "O'Keefe has a history of lying" then it's easy to deflect.
I feel like there's a Phil Robertson reference or joke that could be made here but I don't want a Duck Dynasty google search on my computer.
I like how this implies this has happened before with other ones that were harder to explain.
"Look, I was just googling Excel shortcuts and the next thing I know there was a bunch of MLP hentai in front of me, I don't know!"
For the previous video, the facts that he's not releasing unedited footage and was paid by the Trump campaign are something something.
I don't even know what the latest one is about other than "mass voter fraud."
To quote that Kevin Drum article, I'm so tired.
Hillary may or may not have had a guy dressed up as Donald Duck go to a Trump rally.
Both sides are the same, vote Johnson, etc etc
The supposed DNC operative is not on payroll at the DNC but does work for Brietbart.
Linked a couple pages ago.
Didn't Bill Clinton famously have a bunch of people in chicken costumes go to Bush rallies because he wouldn't debate?
Why does a dude in a donald costume matter at all?
It shouldn't - peaceful protest of political rallies is a mainstay of American politics.
But because Trump supporters are quick to resort to violence against dissent, there's been outcry that it's somehow unfair to "provoke" violent retaliation by protesting peacefully at Trump events.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Look what you made them do.
Good luck all!
It always was.