[Winstonm]

Here is another reason James O'Keefe is ignored:

Quote

James O’Keefe has been teasing journalists for weeks about an undercover operation that could take down Hillary Clinton — I’ve received four “email blasts” from O’Keefe’s Project Veritas about these videos in the past 48 hours alone — so I was suprised to learn that the “trickle-down corruption” he’d come to expose amounted to a Project Veritas operative buying a few Hillary-themed t-shirts for a Canadian.

You read that right — O’Keefe’s own operative captured herself, on camera, illegally purchasing the shirts on behalf of a Canadian and this, O’Keefe claimed, demonstrates the criminal mendacity of the Clinton campaign.

This is from Wikipedia:

Quote

James Edward O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American conservative[1][2] political activist. He has produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not...

Yet this guy, and others like him, are more reliable than Hillary Clinton?

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-24, 12:35, said:

You have done me a great service. I used to think Trump supporters must be stupid. Now I know they are not. They are unhinged. Trump support is surely based on psychology, emotive responses rather than cognitive, which helps explain why logical arguments seem to be useless.

There are many stupid Trump supporters just as there are many stupid Clinton supporters. (Just look on Youtube for the myriad of people doing "man on the street" interviews; most of the shown Clinton voters are voting for her "because she's a woman" and have no other good reason.

Most of you have good reasons for voting for Clinton and I don't think anybody here is voting for her because she's a woman.

I am passionate about my beliefs of Hillary Clinton; that she is the best disciple Saul Alinsky ever had. She has been taught to grab power and use unusual methods to do so, and she has learned her lesson well. She also is not a nice person and has terrible character. This seems like an awful combination to give power to, especially as the Overton Window has been moved so that people will accept the progressiveness, the big Federal Government and its control of the people, and despicable acts by its leaders. Fifty years ago this wouldn't have been a problem because the Overton Window is in a different place and if she tried to wrest control from the people and states and into the Federal Government there would have been an outcry from the public and the biggest Republican sweep in history. Now I fear that most of you are going to be only too accepting of policies that keep her cronies and progressive policies in place forever, and America as our Founding Fathers imagined it will be lost forever.

Now, really, I hope I'm wrong and that she really wants the presidency so that she can try to run the country well for all of us and will actually run it as the Constitution suggests and that she won't do anything evil. She is very likely to be elected and for America's sake I hope I am wrong because if I am not wrong our country is in deep trouble.

If you think I'm bat sh*t crazy for thinking this way, so be it. But I really do believe this and I felt a responsibility to share my thoughts. You may choose to ignore them.

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-24, 19:16, said:

There are many stupid Trump supporters just as there are many stupid Clinton supporters. (Just look on Youtube for the myriad of people doing "man on the street" interviews; most of the shown Clinton voters are voting for her "because she's a woman" and have no other good reason.

Most of you have good reasons for voting for Clinton and I don't think anybody here is voting for her because she's a woman.

I am passionate about my beliefs of Hillary Clinton; that she is the best disciple Saul Alinsky ever had. She has been taught to grab power and use unusual methods to do so, and she has learned her lesson well. She also is not a nice person and has terrible character. This seems like an awful combination to give power to, especially as the Overton Window has been moved so that people will accept the progressiveness, the big Federal Government and its control of the people, and despicable acts by its leaders. Fifty years ago this wouldn't have been a problem because the Overton Window is in a different place and if she tried to wrest control from the people and states and into the Federal Government there would have been an outcry from the public and the biggest Republican sweep in history. Now I fear that most of you are going to be only too accepting of policies that keep her cronies and progressive policies in place forever, and America as our Founding Fathers imagined it will be lost forever.

Now, really, I hope I'm wrong and that she really wants the presidency so that she can try to run the country well for all of us and will actually run it as the Constitution suggests and that she won't do anything evil. She is very likely to be elected and for America's sake I hope I am wrong because if I am not wrong our country is in deep trouble

If you think I'm bat sh*t crazy for thinking this way, so be it. But I really do believe this and I felt a responsibility to share my thoughts. You may choose to ignore them.

.Saul Alinsky: I heard him speak at a Black church in St. Paul. c. 1965. (Yes, even in 1965 there were enough African Americans in St. Paul to support a church or three.) He does not much remind me of Hillary Clinton. Or of Bill either.

Now about that fifty years ago you are thinking of. 1965-1970 say. An active period! Alinsky. Civil Rights legislation. Turn on, Tune In, Drop Out. You say you want a revolution, well all right, we all want to change the world. Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz. A good time.But of course I was writing a thesis etc so I missed it all. Well, most of it.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-24, 19:16, said:

If you think I'm bat sh*t crazy for thinking this way, so be it. But I really do believe this and I felt a responsibility to share my thoughts. You may choose to ignore them.

Just understand, you know those individuals from the "person on the street" that you were discounting as poorly informed idiots...
I put you in precisely the same basket...

The fact that you like to pretend that you are well informed because you can name drop Saul Alinsky doesn't buy you much around here dittohead....

[kenberg]

An experiment. The fact that I expect a fairly vitriolic response is testimony to its importance.

I could pick any of several topics, and perhaps I will later pick others, but I will start with police/race issues.

Here is my list of Obvious Facts (OF):

1. Young black males would like to get home alive.
2. Police officers would like to get home alive.
3. The community would like crime, especially drugs and violence, effectively dealt with.

An Obvious Consequence of the OF is that there are strong reasons for a cooperative effort. We should look at why this doesn't happen. As I see it, and I repeat that there are many examples other than the police/race issue, we are all led into taking one of two positions, A or B. Whether a person sides with A or B s/he regards the problem as very serious. Those siding with A believe that those siding with B are villains or idiots.They insist that great change is needed, and that all of the change must come from side B since they, on side A, are abused victims who must defeat side B. Other than that there is no problem at all, since all on side A are totally without fault. Those on side B believe exactly the same, except for the interchange of A and B.

The natural and predictable result is that things get worse, not better.

There is much written about "The Talk". I think I get it, at least as much as an old white guy can get it. But go back to Michael Brown for a moment, since this is often cited as the starting point of Black Lives Matter. I am not not not saying that he deserved to be shot. Of course not. I did stupid things as an adolescent and I did not get shot. But I did not slug a cop and try to grab his gun. Even as an adolescent, if I had trouble with the police (sometimes justified, sometimes not) I thought it best to be calm and cooperative.

History doesn't disclose its alternatives, but it is not hard to make reasonable guesses. Better training for the police, or better judgment by the cop whose name I no longer recall, might have kept Michael Brown alive. But it is also true that better judgment by Michael Brown might have kept Michael Brown alive. We so easily fall into this us against them mentality. It causes problems and it gets people killed.

And I do hold the media partly to blame here. It is not so much that they have a liberal bias, rather they have a headline bias. "If it bleeds it leads" is an old cynicism. Cynicism can be overdone, but it often has a source.

And there is another problem that is often overlooked. I don' t encounter problems with the police. I don't have problems with drugs. I don't have problems with street violence. When it comes right down to it, like Will Rogers I only know what I read in the papers. I have often thought the problem could be solved a lot more easily if the cops, the young men, and the community just worked on this by themselves without the rest of us choosing sides, cheering and analyzing. Save that approach for the sports pages.

Does this apply to the current election? Oh, I think so.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-24, 12:35, said:

You have done me a great service. I used to think Trump supporters must be stupid. Now I know they are not. They are unhinged. Trump support is surely based on psychology, emotive responses rather than cognitive, which helps explain why logical arguments seem to be useless.

That's what I tell my mother. She says that most of the women she plays bridge with (2 tables of social bridge, not duplicate) are for Trump simply because they despise Hillary, and she can't understand them. She doesn't even enjoy going to her weekly bridge game these days because of it (not to mention the sad fact of attrition due to old age).

Early voting started in MA yesterday. I took advantage of it, so now I'm done with my official part of this election.

[y66]

From Dear Republican Voters by David Leonhardt:

Quote

You are a Republican.

You believe President Obama has been a disappointment if not a failure. You think Hillary Clinton is wrong on most issues, and you worry about her judgment.

You are agonizing about what to do this year, and I understand why. Donald Trump is clearly distasteful. Yet he at least seems likely to appoint conservative judges and sign Republican bills. So what are you supposed to do?

Allow me to tell you about my grandparents.

They grew up as middle-class children of the Depression in Philadelphia. My grandmother was a star athlete who went on to raise a tightly knit family filled with laughter. My outgoing grandfather first sold pens door to door and later sold ads for The Saturday Evening Post and Business Week.

My grandparents believed in American business, and they were small-c conservative. They voted Republican, year after year.

Until 1964.

That year, Barry Goldwater won the nomination from the far right. Most alarming to many people, he mused about using nuclear weapons in the Cold War.

Befitting their generation’s reserve, my grandparents didn’t talk much politics. They simply said they had considered Goldwater beyond the pale. But years ago, I stumbled on a four-minute television ad that Lyndon Johnson’s campaign had run against Goldwater, and I felt as if I were listening to my grandparents.

Called “Confessions of a Republican,” the ad shows a man wearing a suit and glasses (who eventually lights a cigarette) in a chair. He is a Republican, he says, like his father and grandfather. “But when we come to Senator Goldwater, now it seems to me we’re up against a very different kind of a man,” says the actor, himself an anti-Goldwater Republican. “This man scares me.”

For Republicans today, Trump is scarier than Goldwater. He is scarier because he resembles a double agent dreamed up by liberal screenwriters. He embodies almost every left-wing caricature of Republicans that Republicans despise.

He is a racist and a sexist — having refused to rent apartments to African-Americans, retweeted neo-Nazis, besmirched Muslims and Latinos and boastfully molested women. For years, Republicans have been frustrated by liberal sensitivity on race and gender. Comes now Trump, spewing bigotry.

He is also an unrepentant denier of reality. Do you remember that Al Franken wrote a jeremiad against conservatives called “Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”? I imagine the book’s title offends you. Yet it now feels like a preview of a candidate who almost every day makes immediately disprovable claims.

Trump likewise plays into the liberal narrative that the radical right verges on being anti-American. He has suggested our democracy is illegitimate and advocated jail for his opponent.

Finally, Trump displays a proud meanspiritedness about others’ struggles — a meanspiritedness that Democrats have long tried to link to Republican economic policy. He mocks parents who have lost a child, people with disabilities and prisoners of war. He relishes firing people.

Trump is so distinct that he has made this election unavoidably about him. If you vote for him, you can’t pass it off as voting for Supreme Court nominees. You will be voting for Donald Trump. You will be embracing those parodies of conservatism.

You do not need to do that.

It’s true that you have no great options, which is why polls still show many undecided voters. Gary Johnson, initially intriguing, has proved unqualified. You could stay home or write in a vote, but those protests often feel weak.

The best path is the hardest one. Only an unambiguous rejection of Trump will banish Trumpism for 2020 and beyond. Only a lopsided loss, with millions of Republicans so repelled by him that they vote for someone they never imagined they would, sends the message that bigotry, lying and authoritarianism violate Republican values — your values.

I don’t take lightly how hard it is for you to consider a vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m sure that George H.W. Bush, who’s signaled he is voting for her, will do so out of duty, not joy. The same applies to many Republican military figures and conservative newspapers. Any other choice, as the former Reagan aide Ken Adelman says, is at least “a half vote for Trump.”

At the end of the 1964 ad, the man says: “I’ve thought about just not voting in this election, just staying home. But you can’t do that, because that’s saying you don’t care who wins, and I do care.”

That same year, my grandparents endured rare arguments with some close friends. Their friends viewed it as a betrayal to vote for a Democrat. My grandparents viewed it as a betrayal to take lightly a man unfit for the Oval Office. And they never again voted for a Democrat for president. They were Republicans.

This year, the most important statement that any Republican can make is clear: I am not Trump.

[barmar]

That's a beautiful piece. I forwarded it to my mother, maybe she can pass it on to her girlfriends.

[kenberg]

I also was thinking about Goldwater the other day. One of the slogans was "In your heart you know he is right". Brought up to dat, and for the reasonns mentioned in the cited article, this could be "In your heart you know he is wrong".

I think this is what it comes to. Goldwater spoke for a conservative view that, at least in 1964, did not reflect the country. Trump does not speak for a conservative view, to say so is to insult conservatives. Trump is so incoherent that he hardly speaks for anyone. Saying no to Trump is not betraying conservatism, it is not betraying the Republican Party, it is simply facing up to a very ugly situation.

A key line in this piece:
"I'm sure that George H.W. Bush, who's signaled he is voting for her, will do so out of duty, not joy."
Absolutely. You face the facts as they are, and you do what is needed.

[mike777]

My Former Republican Party

Here is one viewpoint I found interesting.



http://www.wsj.com/a...arty-1477353852


"....Now it’s my turn to watch the Republican Party drift away. Whether the trend continues after the election remains to be seen, but already the GOP is largely unrecognizable to me. To see how far it’s fallen, let’s remind ourselves of where it once was.>>>>"

[Kaitlyn S]

y66, on 2016-October-25, 09:05, said:

From Dear Republican Voters by David Leonhardt:

Interesting. While I see your point, I fear that most of you might concede that I also had a strong point in 2024 when you see how little choice you have in selecting our next president.

Again, I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

[andrei]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-24, 17:04, said:

Here is another reason James O'Keefe is ignored:

This is from Wikipedia: He has produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not...

Yet this guy, and others like him, are more reliable than Hillary Clinton?

You did also ignore Donald Trump - Billy Bush NBC recording, right?

After all, NBC have aired edited footage before, like Trayvon Martin's 911 call.

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2016-October-25, 05:34, said:

Just understand, you know those individuals from the "person on the street" that you were discounting as poorly informed idiots...
I put you in precisely the same basket...

The fact that you like to pretend that you are well informed because you can name drop Saul Alinsky doesn't buy you much around here dittohead....

No, I am not well informed because I can name Saul Alinksy.

However, as an American, I am well informed because I know that New Mexico is not a foreign entity. That puts me ahead of about 46% of the American college age kids, the last time I checked. (I have never lived near New Mexico so I don't have an unfair advantage.)

I'm somewhat well informed because I can see around me that those in their 20's can't add 9 and 6 without a calculator or don't know what half of $2 is and realize that something is wrong with how we are educating our children. The current push for more testing and less teaching is going to exacerbate the problem.

I'm somewhat well informed because I realize that that there are some well informed intelligent liberals and some well informed intelligent conservatives. That likely puts me in front of the 80% or so of conservatives that think that almost all liberals are uninformed libtards and the liberals that think that conservatives are a bunch of racist hicks who think all blacks should be sent back to Africa.

I'm somewhat well informed, apparently more well informed than the Republican Party, who seems to make pro-life a major part of its campaign, thus chasing away many possible Republican followers. They don't realize that in 2015, 31% of people that identify as Republicans (including me) are pro-choice, and likely think it's an outrage that a woman should jeopardize her own health for the sake on an unborn child or have to carry a rape baby. It sickened me to see Ted Cruz harp on Planned Parenthood being a top issue. The GOP is going to lose a lot of independent votes if they keep harping on overturning Roe v Wade and "Planned Parenthood atrocities."

I am somewhat well informed because I share neither the left wing view that Islamic terrorism isn't a problem, nor the alt right wing view that we should send all Muslims back to the Middle East and then bomb the entire area. As a conservative, I am in theory (probably in your opinion) a hateful bigoted Muslim hater. And I have been called that many times because I've been vocal on combating Islamic terrorism. (Shocking - she used those words! RACIST!) However, most Muslims here in the USA are neither terrorists nor support terrorism, and the mere fact that I am saying that I believe makes me better informed than many conservatives. Instead of hating Muslims in Sharia countries who hate us, I actually have genunie sympathy for Muslim women who have to live under Sharia law. However, I am also well informed enough to notice that rapes in Sweden have increased dramatically since the Muslim immigrants started coming, something that seems to be considered bullsh*t among most liberals with blinders on. If you are one of the ones that either thinks it's a coincidence or doesn't know that fact, I'm going to have to call you one of the ill-informed ones, at least on this topic.

I am somewhat well informed because I know that both the police and Black Lives Matter make good points. First, the police have to do their job and since much of the crime happens in poor black neighborhoods, that is where their job sends them. However, when well-dressed black people get stopped just for being in a white neighborhood even if they live there, that's a problem. I have posted some solutions on a different discussion board so I have thought about the issue but it is indeed a difficult issue.

Liberals who think the police are 100% wrong and the blacks are 100% right are quite ill informed. So are the conservatives who think the blacks are 100% wrong. Remember that the Ku Klux Klan was a Democratic Party institution so this is not a party issue. However, liberals would do well to read Jason Riley's piece on blacks and police:

Jason Riley on race relations and law enforcement

I reject both the argument I've heard from conservatives that land was made to be used (and raped) by man for his sole benefit, and the argument I've heard from liberals that any decision should be resolved in favor of the environment. I will admit that I don't know enough to say whether the Keystone Pipeline would have caused enough environmental harm in the long run to make it a worse solution than being beholden to countries whose people hate us for our energy needs. However, probably 80% of conservatives were certain it was a good idea and 80% of liberals were certain it was not. I can't believe that there are very many people on either side that know so much more than I do about the issue to be certain of anything, especially when there is so many that disagree with them. I believe that admitting that I don't know is a better informed decision than those on either side that are certain their side is right. I am chastised by many conservative friends for this, but I am actually in favor of significant amounts of land, not taken by Eminent Domain, should be reserved as forever wild. While I'm not convinced of man-made climate change, the safety play here is to cater to that bad distributional break (that man is causing problems and we need to reverse it) and keep many forests thriving to convert CO2 to oxygen, and I actually like to be able to go places and see clean lakes and lots of birds. In fact, my main gripe about wind energy is what the windmills do to the flying birds. How many conservatives are you going to hear that from? But never mind, I'm just a dittohead and am not allowed to have my own thoughts.

I believe that all Americans should have the opportunity to feel good about themselves, and be productive members of society. This is more likely to happen under a system where small businesses can flourish and not be burdened with massive regulations - even knowing all the different regulations from all the levels of government can be so challenging for a new business that the prospective entrepreneur gives up before he starts, meaning there are less jobs for people and more people on the dole, which makes them feel less good about themselves and ticks off the people who support them. Now, this is a conservative position. And while I feel this way, I am more well informed than most conservatives when I say that there are some regulations that are necessary. Many conservatives are ready to scrap all regulation and let the country flourish, I am well enough informed to realize that this won't work. Scrapping regulation will allow for indiscriminate pollution, the buying of 51% of a company and stealing it's assets from the other shareholders, stealing by insider trading, unlimited discrimination by race and gender (as a conservative, I think the regulations have gone too far, but I realize the need for some regulation in this area), and many more issues too numerous to mention. However, at this point, there is far too much regulation and it is choking small businesses and our economy.

A lot of the problem of health care is the rising costs. Right now, when I go to the emergency room, I'm the only one with insurance while there are 4 hours waiting worth of people ahead of me, mostly illegal immigrants, each bringing their kids with the flu, with the government (read: taxpayers) paying a very large tab so that the kid gets some medicine. They don't need the emergency room and they don't even need a doctor! Many medical needs can be met without doctors. Clinics would do the same job for a lot less money. Yes, I can hear conservatives screaming that we're giving the illegal immigrants free health care, but we are already doing just that and paying at least 10 times as much! Note that my partial solution might align more with liberals than conservatives.

Medical bills are also way too high because good doctors have to pay outrageous malpractice insurance to cover a few that get sued for and lose amounts that are way out of touch with reality. Yes, I know doctors make mistakes, but if jury verdicts were more in line with actual costs to the injured patients, health care costs could come down a lot which would help all Americans instead of a few greedy lawyers. Yes, this is a conservative position, but while the ACA dramatically raised health care costs for most who aren't on the dole, I am trying to present solutions to reduce costs.

College costs are outrageous. One of the reasons is that the government loans everybody and their brother money for college and there is too much demand. Consider that the average kid might be better off forgoing college for four years of experience, and if he had any talent at all, he will probably be the boss of the new graduates coming out of college. Apprenticeship programs that get people doing useful things faster can replace $60,000 a year college bills to teach our young people diversity studies - which the taxpayers will probably end up paying for with the laws about college debt forgiveness for certain professions or after a certain time.

I think the federal government's job is mainly defense, there is no reason for many of the agencies. For example, education should be handled at the state, if not local, level. If Kansas wants to teach creationism while California wants to teach 26 gender identities, I see no reason not to let them, and each set of parents can try to relocate to a state whose ideas align with theirs (easier now that many jobs can be done remotely.) There is no reason for a federal Department of Education.

The above content represents my own thoughts and I hope you can see that I am not parroting a random conservative organization. If you still believe I am an uninformed dittohead, then I will never change your mind. However, I hope I have proven you wrong about that allegation.

[Winstonm]

andrei, on 2016-October-25, 12:19, said:

You did also ignore Donald Trump - Billy Bush NBC recording, right?

After all, NBC have aired edited footage before, like Trayvon Martin's 911 call.

Virtually all entities edit - the question is whether the editing is done to try to better present the facts or to mislead as to the facts.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2016-October-25, 09:16, said:

That's a beautiful piece. I forwarded it to my mother, maybe she can pass it on to her girlfriends.

I totally agree with Barry. So far the most impressive post I have read in this topic. I shared it in my face book account.

[MrAce]

Double post

[andrei]

Winstonm, on 2016-October-25, 13:23, said:

Virtually all entities edit - the question is whether the editing is done to try to better present the facts or to mislead as to the facts.

NBC apologized for editing that tape. For trying to better present facts

I am pretty sure you know what kind of editing was done on the 911 tape, so let's not "spin" it anymore.

https://www.washingt...m=.7c752973c1fd

[kenberg]

andrei, on 2016-October-25, 14:05, said:

NBC apologized for editing that tape. For trying to better present facts

I am pretty sure you know what kind of editing was done on the 911 tape, so let's not "spin" it anymore.

https://www.washingt...m=.7c752973c1fd

I had not seen this. It is virtually impossible for this to be accidentally misleading. It would be interesting to know what the follow up was, but I hope someone got fired.

I see news stories from time to time where, after reading them, I feel certain that what is being portrayed as happening and what actually happened are two different things. Sometimes it can be written off to carelessness or laziness. That would be a stretch here, this was a deliberate distortion. No, of course I can't prove it.

Or I can allow for another possibility, one that I believe happens often. The guy doing this editing had made up his mind, and then closed his mind to the extent that he was oblivious to what he was doing. But, really, I think that he knew exactly what he was doing. Either way he needs to get a job serving french fries for a while.

[Winstonm]

andrei, on 2016-October-25, 14:05, said:

NBC apologized for editing that tape. For trying to better present facts

I am pretty sure you know what kind of editing was done on the 911 tape, so let's not "spin" it anymore.

https://www.washingt...m=.7c752973c1fd

I don't know what NBC was doing but "trying to better present the facts" is not an option for what they were doing. It was either a purposeful edit to make Zimmerman seem racist or simple stupidity.

That does not relieve James O'Keefe of his responsibilities for creating at best misleading tapes, again and again and again.

[Winstonm]

andrei, on 2016-October-25, 12:19, said:

You did also ignore Donald Trump - Billy Bush NBC recording, right?

After all, NBC have aired edited footage before, like Trayvon Martin's 911 call.

Btw, Trump has said the tape is accurate, that he indeed said what was on the tape.