Hillary Clinton

But this is my problem with Clinton, i cannot morally vote for her based on her foreign policy. I'm not even okay with the Obama administration's use of drone strikes in Syria but I feel like Hillary will ramp up the US's involvement.

And who knows what the fuck Trump will do..

Such a moral quandry, being an American.

 

Who would Trump nominate to the Supreme Court? She gets my vote on that issue alone.

 

If you had that much power behind the words you pack. Why are not on the floor in Parliament ?

 

According to wikipedia, Breitbart released the videos, but they were made by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy

The videos were edited to include images in which O'Keefe "wore a fur coat, top hat, sunglasses, and wielded a cane" (where as he was in fact dressed plainly) , but ACORN employees did in fact (among other things) advise O'Keefe on his business plan to operate an underaged prostitution ring:

The editing of the videos may have exaggerated the negative impression generated by the videos, but I don't see anything in the wp article that indicates that the video fundamentally distorted misconduct by ACORN employees.

Why is that you say that ACORN was wrongly accused?

And if you discount news organizations (and anyone associated with them) for distorting accounts of events, do you feel the same way about NBC when it edited George Zimmerman's call to 911?

 

Ok, but Breitbart didn't make the videos as you claimed

I already noted in my first post that he was not dressed as a pimp when the videos were recorded. While it's clear that Giles and O'Keefe made the videos with the intention of making ACORN look bad, the fact that he was not dressed as a pimp does not represent a substantial distortion of facts.

I'm assuming that you're getting your information from the same wikipedia article that I referenced. According to that article, in at least one case, he claimed that he was going to use the prostitution funds to run for congress. How is that helping to make your argument?

According to wp, in the San Diego ACORN office, a staffer contacted police in Mexico. That doesn't account for other instances, such as at the Baltimore and DC offices, which I quoted.

I don't know why you turned this into a link, since it's just a link back to the same wikipedia article which I cited in the first place.

One investigation was initiated and funded by ACORN itself. Two other investigations were about ACORN's handling of federal funds, and don't appear to address other issues. An investigation into only the Brooklyn office found no criminal wrong doing. An investigation into incidents in California found that employees "did not commit prosecutable crimes in California". This is different from saying that they did not commit crimes, however, since the videos would not have been admissible as evidence.

I don't see any indication that staffers did not say what they were presented as saying, only that there was editing (such as editing that led viewers to believe that O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp) that made ACORN staffers look worse than they did in the raw video.

I think you can say that O'Keefe clearly had an agenda, and edited tapes to cast ACORN in a bad light. I think you could also say that the staffers in question were low-level, and the ACORN acted quickly to fire them when what they said went public. I think you could also make the case for ACORN's overall virtue, but I don't think you can say that ACORN was wrongly accused of misdeeds.

I'll plan to address the Zimmerman issue later

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-fbi-just-gave-hillary-the-worst-news-of-her-campaign/

Are you a criminal? Would you vote for a criminal. Oh, I don't think I'll vote for Trump either, not sure what difference it would make anyway.

I think we are absolutely screwed, and this is the problem we really need to focus on fixing. The media certainly doesn't help anything either, and they think this is all a big joke to make money from.

 

Is there a difference between a convicted criminal and an uncinvicted criminal? Both or criminals and one just got caught.

 

Damn right I'm a criminal, and so are you, all of you. Every single one of us is a criminal by definition as defined by the laws our government has written for us, the people, to protect us from ourselves.

Most of us just haven't been thoroughly investigated enough, but they have it written such that if they so choose, they could at any time prosecute us for numerous things.

This is a problem. What is crime?

 

I already addressed this. How he was dressed doesn't effect what ACORN staffers said

That's what a sting operation is, claiming something that is not true to expose someone. Giles and O'Keefe didn't have the legal authority to collect evidence without a warrant, but in lying about their prostitution ring, running for Congress, etc., what they did was not fundamentally different than what undercover police do, or in some cases journalists

My point here is not that ACORN was a totally evil organization, or that misconduct necessarily went to the highest levels. I already acknowledged that the staff in question were low-level.

The point here is that you have made the argument that we should ignore criticisms of HRC made by Peter Schweizer, on the grounds that he writes for Breitbart, and we should ignore anyone associated with Breitbart because they released videos that wrongly accused ACORN of misdeeds.

Given that ACORN staffers actually did offer advice on how to conduct illegal activities, one might reasonably conclude that Breitbart rightly accused ACORN of misdeeds. One may make the arguments in favor of ACORN that may soften or excuse what they did, but the video did not fundamentally mislead people into thinking that ACORN staffers gave advice about how to conduct illegal activity when they did not.

I haven't read Schweizer's book, but my guess is that it is a mix of legitimate criticism mixed with agenda driven bullshit. Or in other words, it's not that far off from most/all of the media these days.

Rather than saying we can dismiss the book out of hand, it would be better to say we should take it with a big grain of salt, and the same goes for the rest of the media.

 

I'm abundantly aware that if you edit a document to re-arrange the particular words or word-order, you can distort their meaning.

However, this is not what happened in the ACORN videos. ACORN staffers did in fact give advice on conducting illegal activities, including underage prostitution. In only one case, an ACORN staffer had a credible claim to playing along, then contacting Mexican police.

Quote

Quote

The quotes are actual, not rearrangements.

In the NBC case, they actually did manipulate the sentences Zimmerman used in a way that distorted their interpretation. Zimmerman was unable to prove that NBC manipulated his quote quote with malicious intent, though they clearly did manipulate his quote.

If Giles and O'Keefe admitted their agenda, whereas NBC did not, that does little to recommend the credibility of NBC.

 

Ever work anywhere or deal with a group of people in almost ANY capacity where there was one or more STUPID people? Said or did something wrong? I have. You deal with errant employees/volunteers on an individual basis. Admittedly, I don't know anything about Acorn, but I know that to condemn any organization according to the wrongful acts of one or a few members of an organization by condemning the whole deal is not the way to handle it. Exceptions, of course=Mafia, KKK, etc.

 

The O J discussion belongs in another thread.

 

Sorry, but after watching all those seasons of: House of Cards, I have no problem with my executive playing hardball.

 

There was a point to post #210.

And it wasn't the content itself of that post that should be brought to attention, it's the fact that people can spin things to look like anything at all, as was alluded to in the previous post as well. Things can be made to look like nearly anything at all and there's nearly no way to tell the difference; people can make things look as if someone said something, or meant something that they didn't even say at all if they so wish.

Is Donald Trump a member of this site, and did he post here on July 6th? I think not, apparently he must be a member, and have said what he said here, since he was quoted saying it; whether he said those things, or whether they were quoted out of context (which is implied by the short quotations w/o context, and with edited addtion) isn't what I was trying to bring to attention. I really don't care, as politics has devolved into defamation, slander, and personal attacks on the "enemy".

The point of post #210 was rather, mostly, to see who in fact is actually paying attention to detail.

How attentive are YOU, do you just take anything you see at face value and ignore the subtleties that are in the details; many people are deceived this way.

Something to think about; we all should pay close attention to the details, because that's where it happens. And things are easily manipulated under the assumption that people expect things to be a certain way, and totally miss small details that don't quite "add up".

Peace.

 

I am over the top attentive paying attention to minute detail , but I just shrugged my shoulders seeing that and said to myself, someone must be up to their antics again.

Lol