Trump

[KlaxonCow]

At least the focus has moved away from his johnson.

Indeed, it's so undignified for a Presidential campaign to have been so focused on such a small, small matter.

[tufty]

At least the focus has moved away from his johnson.

To be fair, it's hard to keep focus on small things in the foreground.

[gumboot]

Hillary is paying gangs of homeless bums to cause ructions at Trump rallies.

So, this video is a mess and I gave up trying to watch it originally and didn't realize it was what Trump was referring to in the debate, but Google pointed me back to it and I had to try again.

Still didn't get far into it, but the gist seemed to be that someone (who would surely know better than to talk like that if it was really his line of work, maybe?) was paying people to turn up at Trump rallies and try to get themselves assaulted. Is that right?

Usually when I see video edited like that it's pushing really mad conspiracy theories and if I don't see anything funny early on then I bail; but I suppose that if a potential future president of the United States takes it seriously then I should make a greater effort.

[Cloudane]

First thought this morning: "I wonder how much of an arse the Donald has made of himself this time"

It sounds like "Nasty Woman" has won this one

[gravy]

To be honest I thought the 'bad hombre's' comment was probably the worst of it

[KlaxonCow]

Hillary is paying gangs of homeless bums to cause ructions at Trump rallies.

The bloke who made this video, James O'Keefe, has a history of doing this sort of thing and his past "revelations" have turned out to be false and seriously dodgy.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/projec ... on-videos/

How quickly things seem to fall apart when James O’Keefe is the person who put them together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

He gained national attention for his release of video recordings of workers at ACORN offices in 2009 [...] Due to his videos of ACORN workers allegedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the U.S. Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit. The national scandal resulted in the non-profit also losing most private funding before investigations were completed. In March 2010, ACORN was close to bankruptcy and had to close most of its offices. Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. A preliminary probe by the GAO found that ACORN had managed its federal funds appropriately [...] O'Keefe has been accused of selectively editing and manipulating his recordings of ACORN employees, as well as distorting chronologies. Several journalists and media outlets have expressed regret for not properly scrutinizing and vetting his work. In the summer of 2011, he began releasing videos of his colleagues' staged encounters with workers which he claimed showed fraud related to Medicaid applicability. Further examination concluded there was no fraud or intent to commit fraud.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Of course, the fact that this source has previously proved woefully unreliable and wilfully dishonest - to further a conservative agenda to attack Planned Parenthood (for abortions) and ACORN (a non-profit, which received some federal funding, that "that advocated for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues" - he killed off a charity to help poor people), was arrested for trying to conduct secret recordings on a Democratic Senator to prove that she was supposedly ignoring phone calls from constituents against Obamacare during a debate (because Obamacare is evil) and did a "fake sheikh" stunt posing as a Muslim affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood donating money to "National Public Radio" (which also receives federal public funding) because, apparently, accepting money from Muslims is "treasonous and evil" or something or another like that - doesn't mean this video is more of the same.

But it's highly likely to just be more of the same.

Regarding the heavily edited video he released about NPR accepting money from Muslims:

On March 17, Martha T. Moore of USA Today reported: "According to The Blaze analysis, Ron Schiller's most inflammatory remarks, that Tea Party members are 'seriously racist', were made as he was recounting the views of Republicans he has spoken with — although he does not appear to disagree. It also shows Schiller appearing to laugh about the potential spread of Islamic sharia law, when the longer version shows he laughed in reaction to something completely different."

And, of course, the accusation that some Tea Party members are "seriously racist" is like Hillary's "basket of deplorables" remark. Everyone acts shocked at such blunt accusations because you're not supposed to say things like that out loud. But, come on, they're absolutely right, aren't they?

I mean, the entire premise of this NPR sting was to pose as a Muslim, offer a donation that he hoped they would accept and then cry "ZOMG! This organisation that accepts public money is also accepting money from evil and filthy Muslims too!". For fuck's sake, case in point. The entire operation hinged on conservatives being "seriously racist" in order to think NPR should no longer receive public money because Muslims.

Look at his choice of targets. Planned Parenthood receiving public funding (to mainly help the poor), ACORN receiving public funding (to help the poor), Democratic Senators that were for Obamacare (to help the poor) and National Public Radio receiving public funding. It's not just a blatantly conservative agenda, it's a "kill the poor" conservative agenda with some seriously racist undertones (not just the Muslim thing, as ACORN helps poor families and, in America, that's unfortunately largely African American and other minority families).

[gravy]

There is some substance here: Bob Creamer's stepped down because of this.

Antagonising Trump supporters is beyond the pail.

That said the main problem here is a group provokable into violence because someone is wearing a pro-life t-shirt

[KlaxonCow]

That said the main problem here is a group provokable into violence because someone is wearing a pro-life t-shirt

Yeah, that is an odd kind of "rigging the election".

When it wouldn't even work at all if it weren't for Trump's supporters happily demonstrating that they really are a "basket of deplorables" at the slightest provocation.

[gumboot]

There is some substance here: Bob Creamer's stepped down because of this.

Of course, if he were completely innocent it would probably still be best for the campaign to do exactly the same thing; so that's not really evidence of anything at all.

The entire operation hinged on conservatives being "seriously racist" in order to think NPR should no longer receive public money because Muslims.

Although it probably does rely heavily on inherent racism, I think the defensible point is meant to be specifically the Muslim Brotherhood link. I don't know shit about them, but a quick skim over wikipedia (so actually I know everything about them) suggests that they may not be completely nice.

[RiK]

When the stream is over it will still have that title but be legal to watch.

No, it won't. If you look at the title now it's changed and doesn't say "LIVE" in big letters as it did when it was, you know, live.

[gumboot]

OTOH, has anybody actually tried coffee creamer? It's fucking awful and should be got rid of. Anybody using it for a surname is clearly guilty as hell.

That said the main problem here is a group provokable into violence because someone is wearing a pro-life t-shirt

Wait, what? Pro-choice, surely. Don't make me go back and watch the video to see.

[KlaxonCow]

Pro-choice, surely.

Oh, yeah. I didn't spot that.

They're confusing euphemistic names anyway. If they called the sides "pro-God" and "pro-biological-facts" then it'd be so much easier to remember.

[(o)(o)]

When the stream is over it will still have that title but be legal to watch.

No, it won't. If you look at the title now it's changed and doesn't say "LIVE" in big letters as it did when it was, you know, live.

The title was edited later.

Anticipating a condescending reply I took this screenshot for your edification. As you can see it says "LIVE" in big letters as it did when it was, you know, live, but is on demand.



The word "live" is commonplace on youtube videos whether they are live or not. Example. Is this streaming live or not?



As far as I know no way of telling whether an embedded YouTube video on here is live or not without clicking on it. All I'm asking is for forewarning from posters so those of us who don't have a TV license don't inadvertently self-incriminate themselves.

I would have thought pogo would know better as he himself isn't a license payer.

[pogo]

That was by far the best debate. Trump was better for much of it, probably picking up on some of the mistakes he made in earlier debates. And the moderator kept things focussed on Republican talking points that played into Trump’s strengths, and Clinton’s perceived weaknesses.

But Clinton swatted the questions off with ease, either responding substantively or rapidly pivoting to attack Trump. E.g. going from her leaked speeches to the hacks to Trump’s ties to Russia, making him retort like a child, "no, you’re the puppet!”. Or going from discussing the achievements of the Clinton Foundation to the illegal practices of Trump’s own charity. Or contrasting her record of public service with Trump’s terrible business record.

She was not just better than Trump but expertly and ruthlessly targeted him psychologically; she and her team played to his weaknesses and it paid off in spades. And frankly that’s what you want in a president; someone not just competent on all the issues but someone able to adapt to the situation and turn it to their advantage. The thing Trump said he was good at, making deals and triumphing in negotiations. He talked the talk but Clinton walked the walk, and wiped the floor with him.



Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins

[Cloudane]

If Clinton wins, I have a feeling the Trumpeteers are going to make "Regrexit" look like one person tutting at the result. He's not going to let this go - if it's a small win for her it's "unclear", if it's a big win it's "rigged" or people were tricked into voting incorrectly etc. There'll be riots.