Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Calling a source credible or untrustworthy doesn't require some sort of willingness to "accept the truth", when something contradicts known information or misrepresents statements to push a particular argument, you note the bias and move on. Applying a false equivalence of "I see bias in all these sources, so all sources are biased" is absurd, you are no more qualified to be an arbiter of truth than the rest of us.

In political discussion though: http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2007/articles/1014.htm is an examination of how Bill made use of the town hall debate format, which I had mentioned at some point in the past here but never found the info that I wanted to post more info about, though it is more relevant because you can see many of the same techniques in action with Hillary vs Trump.

Did the article get the year wrong for one of them? Because Bill wasn't running in 2000 due to term limits.

Edit: Unless it's referring to Al Gore's debate.

[Max™]

It was also referring to that one, yeah.

Also found a mindblowing new leak.

[Starver]

'Overwhelming evidence of fraud' = Trump lost

"Overwhelming" is 3%, any fule knows that...

[Neonivek]

I know this is just well... mud slinging in purest form

One reason I honestly believe Trump is running for president is likely because it allows him to avoid a LOOOOT of the litigation set towards him and to change laws in his favor (which he is open about doing)... AND well... the law is FINALLY patching up the laws that protect him.

Heck I honestly don't know if Trump is rich right now or hopelessly poor... because that is how Trump operates.

[misko27]

It was also referring to that one, yeah.

Also found a mindblowing new leak.

Insanity. It will blow the Pentagon Papers out of the water.

[smjjames]

It was also referring to that one, yeah.

Also found a mindblowing new leak.

Nice troll there.

Anyways, due to the split screen setup, that got nullified somewhat since both would be in frame anyway. I'm sure Bill gave Hillary some tips, though I don't think she really did any of Bills tricks, other than perhaps try to get it as a single picture rather than the split screen.

[Reelya]

You could just watch the video and search for the people in it yourself, but I suppose that would require you actually have independent thought. It's easier to just say it's fake, right ?

... because the last 17,000 videos James O'Keefe did were fake. In every case it's been doctored footage, cuts small snippets together in which his person has presented leading question, then pastes together the responses out of context while cutting out what his people said that generated that response.

Xeron, the guy getting any airtime relies on people who haven't looked into his history stating that each video needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. Well, O'Keefe / Project Veritas has had the benefit, all that's left is the doubt.

[smjjames]

You could just watch the video and search for the people in it yourself, but I suppose that would require you actually have independent thought. It's easier to just say it's fake, right ?

... because the last 17,000 videos James O'Keefe did were fake. Years worth of videos and none of them have ever checked out. He always doctors footage, cuts small snippets together in which his person has presented leading question, then pastes together the responses out of context while cutting out what his people said that generated that response.

Xeron, the guy getting any airtime relies on people who haven't looked into his history stating that each video needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. Well, O'Keefe / Project Veritas has had the benefit, all that's left is the doubt.

Yeah, it smacked of the whole business with the Planned Parenthood tapes by a different group (which were also heavily edited), which is what tipped me off here. Not to mention that it feels heavily edited, with liberal use of transitions between short snippets, including one REALLY short snippet.

[Reelya]

There was one that wasn't doctored I think, which was where he used entrapment to get the young son of a democrat politician to agree to the idea that tampering with voter registration could improve his dad's election chances. But in that case, the idea came from the Project Veritas person, and they basically targeted a young dude who happened to be related to a politician, rather than anyone professionally involved. So they targeted family loyalty and naive youthful suggestibility rather than actually proving anything about "liberals".

But then again, I'm probably misremembering and they probably doctored that video, too, to make it look like the whole idea wasn't planted.

Then there was the Abbie Boudreau case, where he set up cameras and dressed "sexy" because he was going to video himself trying to seduce an award-winning investigative journalist, who was doing a research piece into the new conservative "ninja" journalism people like him represented. I think he assumed she was a slut because she's blonde and liberal. Either way, I'm sure he planned some leading conversation and to doctor the video, coz he always does that. The woman was warned off by a female Project Veritas employee, who was later terminated.

Anyway, here's his seduction target:


And here's a picture of him, which was public knowledge before his alleged seduction attempt:


D'ya see the discrepancy here, with the toe-rag little try-hard bitch motherfucker thinking he could take down a competent woman who has a brain?

BTW that last picture of him was his alleged disguise to show that he was a serious pimp when he went to Acorn, talking about getting abortions for his bitchez or some such. He claims they took him seriously, but really the video shows the people flabbergasted and just nodding along with whatever he said. It really doesn't need to be said, but there's no way he's a pimp. The whole point of having a pimp is to intimidate johns who refuse to pay. I'm not a tough guy, but I'd beat the shit out of him just for looking like that, pimp or not.

[UXLZ]

Do you have a normal and neutral picture of the guy and woman that aren't obviously intended to influence the viewer's opinion?

[Reelya]

The main point was, that she saw him looking like that before he tried to seduce her. Those pimp shots were in 2009, he tried to set up the seduction in 2010. So it's entirely relevant to say that a guy known for dressing like a shitty pimp was trying to seduce an award-winning journalist who's photo we also have.

Showing "normal" and "neutral" photos of the people involved would actually be a distortion. Because those photos I presented are what each party already knew about the other.

e.g. If the sex photos of yourself dressed as a submissive in a bondage / furry suit are already on the web, and your prospective date know that, then those are in fact the current neutral representation of yourself with respect to dating. Saying it's unfair to judge you from the publicly available photos instead of "normal" photos would be preposterous.

[misko27]

Do you have a normal and neutral picture of the guy and woman that aren't obviously intended to influence the viewer's opinion?

So what, a mugshot? Be clear on what precisely you want here, no goal-post moving.

[UXLZ]

I just mean something in normal attire... Like, walking down a street or something. The guy definitely looks like a massive jackass, that's true. The picture of the woman is a publicity shot that has (probably) been photo-shopped a bit. It's something newspapers do, if they want to portray someone as "good and sympathetic" the picture will be of them in a suit, looking all proper. If they want to portray them as "bad", they'll find some random picture of them after a party or whatever where they look absolutely awful.

[Sergarr]

God it's embarrassing thinking about how I sounded sometimes back in the late 90's.

That's nothing, it's embarrassing thinking about how I sounded just two years ago.

[Sheb]

The main point was, that she saw him looking like that before he tried to seduce her. Those pimp shots were in 2009, he tried to set up the seduction in 2010. So it's entirely relevant to say that a guy known for dressing like a shitty pimp was trying to seduce an award-winning journalist who's photo we also have.

Showing "normal" and "neutral" photos of the people involved would actually be a distortion. Because those photos I presented are what each party already knew about the other.

e.g. If the sex photos of yourself dressed as a furry are already on the web, and your prospective date know that, then those are in fact the current neutral representation of yourself with respect to dating.

I'm not sure what this whole tengent has to do with anything.