The 2016 US American Election Thread

[driveway]

O'Keefe should release unedited tapes if he wants to be taken seriously.

News organizations would report on this, but they aren't going to report on what is, for all intents and purposes, Conservative "Bowling for Columbine."

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Monica Lewinsky would obviously be the prime candidate as another possible guest. Who else could there be? I wanna say Vince McMahon but he's too smart for something this dumb.

I saw an article last week where a journalist saw her at an airport last week and tried to get her to comment, and she clearly wanted nothing to do with the current conversations. I felt a bit bad for her; in this tell-all election cycle, it seemed - dare I say it - classy to just decline to comment.

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

It's easier to dismiss something than actually have to think about it even if it's not true.

There's also shortcuts we use every day to avoid having to think deeply about every single thing.

In principle yes something should be judged on its individual merit.

In practice there are basic things that can be used as a shortcut to tell me if it is worth the time to consider. Having been demonstrated to have used deceptive editing and dishonest tactics would be one. Being unwilling to release raw footage to be inspected is another.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to be believed for such a claim the onus is on them to jump through the necessary hoops to convince more than people just looking for something to confirm their bias.

If I was an investigative reporter or a lawyer of course there would be more effort put into validating or refuting the claim.

But if the Society for the Advancement of Flat Earth Cosmology sends me a science book, it's reasonable to provisionally disregard it until they go to the effort of making it clear enough that it demands attention.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Hahahaha you think it can't get any more ridiculous, and then it does



https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/statu...03100340506625



https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/statu...15009299095557

Haha, wow. Trump is really pulling out all the stops now. This final debate is gonna be comedy gold.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ahhh I know who Trump might bring, that kid who claims he's Bill's illegitimate kid! Wouldn't that be fun?!?!?

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by photon

There's also shortcuts we use every day to avoid having to think deeply about every single thing.

In principle yes something should be judged on its individual merit.

In practice there are basic things that can be used as a shortcut to tell me if it is worth the time to consider. Having been demonstrated to have used deceptive editing and dishonest tactics would be one. Being unwilling to release raw footage to be inspected is another.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone wants to be believed for such a claim the onus is on them to jump through the necessary hoops to convince more than people just looking for something to confirm their bias.

If I was an investigative reporter or a lawyer of course there would be more effort put into validating or refuting the claim.

But if the Society for the Advancement of Flat Earth Cosmology sends me a science book, it's reasonable to provisionally disregard it until they go to the effort of making it clear enough that it demands attention.

So the topic of voter fraud on a national scale is equal in your mind to everyday menial topics that are so mundane they can be flippantly dismissed?

A 15 minute of documented conversations with people involved in the electoral process is the same as flat Earth theories that actually have no proof? Or are you just desperately trying to equate one issue with another? Seems like you're doing every mental gymnastic you can think of to dismiss the issue without acknowledging it.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by driveway

O'Keefe should release unedited tapes if he wants to be taken seriously.

News organizations would report on this, but they aren't going to report on what is, for all intents and purposes, Conservative "Bowling for Columbine."

I'll go with Snopes on this.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/pro...ection-videos/

Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage
absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

and Foval's termination has a smoke its fire thing.

Or they're being far far too cautious. I mean he contributed to ACORN's downfall, smoke, fire? But it ended up that his videos had nothing, so the damage he did was from nothing.

p: Hey CC, there's a lot of flies this year right?
CC: Yeah, I hate those little black things.

Later

p: What's your view on the African American voters?
CC: I think our helping them to get out to vote will increase their voice in government.

Copy/Paste..

Careful questions and editing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AcGold

This is the textbook on shutting down a conversation

1. It's not real
2. It's a conspiracy that's impossible
3. "Do you really believe"

those buzzwords of conspiracy and believe are a pretty strong tell someone has made up their mind way before critical thought.

1) I didn't say its not real. I said that they appear to be talking about how to hypothetically rig an election as opposed to actually rigging an election and the voice overs at key moments instead of a full release of unedited tape make me question the validity of the tape.

For example if we only had the one line from Trumps hot mike take I would likely say that there was context to explain it as only the one line was published.

2) It's not the fact that its a conspiracy that makes it impossible. Its the logistical effort required to make a difference vs the probability of a whistle blower coming forward. My buddy Occam has a saying about this.

3) I want to know if the poster really believes the contents of the video or is it just presented without comment. If a person really believes this I am interested in the discussion if its pure troll or presented as info I'm not that interested in a discussion.

So if the video poster was interested in real debate on issues he would have turned the video over to the police in the relevant states and he would release the unedited tape in its entirety. Until that occurs it isn't worth the time. I will gladly review it when the Rock Bottom music is removed and the tape is complete.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So the topic of voter fraud on a national scale is equal in your mind to everyday menial topics that are so mundane they can be flippantly dismissed?

The topic? Not necessarily. But every bit of evidence prior to a dubious YouTube video from a man known to use highly manipulative editing techniques has shown that the idea of large scale voter fraud in US presidential elections is nonexistent. So the guy who makes deceptive films is dismissed until he can show unedited proof of his claims. This isn't rocket appliances.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by GGG

1) I didn't say its not real. I said that they appear to be talking about how to hypothetically rig an election as opposed to actually rigging an election and the voice overs at key moments instead of a full release of unedited tape make me question the validity of the tape.

For example if we only had the one line from Trumps hot mike take I would likely say that there was context to explain it as only the one line was published.

2) It's not the fact that its a conspiracy that makes it impossible. Its the logistical effort required to make a difference vs the probability of a whistle blower coming forward. My buddy Occam has a saying about this.

3) I want to know if the poster really believes the contents of the video or is it just presented without comment. If a person really believes this I am interested in the discussion if its pure troll or presented as info I'm not that interested in a discussion.

Hypothetical is the very meaning of not real

It's the fact that you use the word conspiracy, it's a buzzword that ignores all preposition and counterpoint

What does beleiving have to do with anything. What does it matter who believes what? That's an incredibly easy way to diminish an argument. Something happened or it didn't.

I like how you waited for your buddy so you could have it two on one. Now three on one, the point stands. You'll do everything but discuss it. I'm not saying the video is true whatsoever, simply that there are about 15 or so buzzwords and tactics in the modern lexicon that ends all debate before it starts.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

Or they're being far far too cautious. I mean he contributed to ACORN's downfall, smoke, fire? But it ended up that his videos had nothing, so the damage he did was from nothing.

p: Hey CC, there's a lot of flies this year right?
CC: Yeah, I hate those little black things.

Later

p: What's your view on the African American voters?
CC: I think our helping them to get out to vote will increase their voice in government.

Copy/Paste..

Careful questions and editing.

And that's more then fair Photon, I've never watched or been exposed to Veritas before.

However like I said, everything is image and perception is reality, so the Foval termination, the birdogging link to the wikileaks emails is suspicious.

I mean at the worst, if this is happening and actual people got hurt in this action, then in any normal election it the end of the road for the candidate.

Of course this not being a normal election.

Its tenuous evidence at best, is it worthy of questioning what is seen on the tapes when your electing a commander in chief? I think it is if the raw unedited tapes are released.

[GGG]

I had a discussion with AcGold his position on the Veritas video and I quote is

Originally Posted by AcGold

It's not real, It's a conspiracy that's impossible, Debunked

the topic of voter fraud on a national scale is equal to everyday menial topics that are so mundane they can be flippantly dismissed

A 15 minute of documented conversations with people involved in the electoral process is the same as flat Earth theories

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So the topic of voter fraud on a national scale is equal in your mind to everyday menial topics that are so mundane they can be flippantly dismissed?

Who said flippantly? I'm drawing a parallel to highlight a process.

Originally Posted by AcGold

A 15 minute of documented conversations with people involved in the electoral process is the same as flat Earth theories that actually have no proof?

Flat earth people have TONS of proof, you just dismissed all of it by saying they have none. Until you've watched all the video on flat earth theories I don't think it's fair for you to dismiss it as you did!

There's millions of hours of video documenting conversations with people involved in everything you can imagine. From fake moon landings to explosives in the twin towers to aliens among us to secret global cabals running the world's governments and every other thing you can imagine.

Without original unedited footage, why should it get any more consideration than the National Enquirer? This election has seen a lot of disinformation; people will go to extreme lengths.

Originally Posted by AcGold

Or are you just desperately trying to equate one issue with another? Seems like you're doing every mental gymnastic you can think of to dismiss the issue without acknowledging it.

Basic requirements for substantiation of a claim aren't mental gymnastics, outlining a process with examples isn't equating them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Hypothetical is the very meaning of not real

It's the fact that you use the word conspiracy, it's a buzzword that ignores all preposition and counterpoint

What does beleiving have to do with anything. What does it matter who believes what? That's an incredibly easy way to diminish an argument.

I like how you waited for your buddy so you could have it two on one.

I said they are discussing How to rig and election and not how he rigged and election. That is apparent from the text.

I'm confused about how I waited for my buddy??? Not to use the word conspiracy again but I don't have a conspiracy with Photon of when I post on CP. I post when I read stuff.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by GGG

I said they are discussing How to rig and election and not how he rigged and election. That is apparent from the text.

I'm confused about how I waited for my buddy??? Not to use the word conspiracy again but I don't have a conspiracy with Photon of when I post on CP. I post when I read stuff.

Sure, you can't prove that though. Why won't you discuss the fact that you are waiting on photon before you post? First he attacked AC, then you did. This all happened a little too quickly for it to simply be coincidence, you can't just discount the possibility of conspiracy. Where there's smoke there's fire.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by photon

Who said flippantly? I'm drawing a parallel to highlight a process.



Flat earth people have TONS of proof, you just dismissed all of it by saying they have none. Until you've watched all the video on flat earth theories I don't think it's fair for you to dismiss it as you did!

There's millions of hours of video documenting conversations with people involved in everything you can imagine. From fake moon landings to explosives in the twin towers to aliens among us to secret global cabals running the world's governments and every other thing you can imagine.

Without original unedited footage, why should it get any more consideration than the National Enquirer? This election has seen a lot of disinformation; people will go to extreme lengths.



Basic requirements for substantiation of a claim aren't mental gymnastics, outlining a process with examples isn't equating them.

I have watched plenty of Flat Earth videos. I've got their documents and I tested their calculations. I've spent hundreds of hours studying astrophysics and the Flat Earth theories actually corroborate a lot of Einsteinian theories of relativity.

That being said it's clear you have given very little actual thought and research into either topic.

Mmm...false equivalence. I'm going to write this down so I can follow your script for ignoring critical thought.

1. Use buzzwords
2. Groupthink
3. False equivalence

Am I missing something? Is ad hominem number 4? I bet it is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So Hillary is bringing Mark Cuban and Meg Whitman as her guests to the debate. More subtle trolling than Trump, yet better and more effective trolling too. Nothing Trump hates more than actual billionaires.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So Hillary is bringing Mark Cuban and Meg Whitman as her guests to the debate. More subtle trolling than Trump, yet better and more effective trolling too. Nothing Trump hates more than actual billionaires.

I kind of wish they'd treat this debate like they do soccer teams with awful fans and make them have it in an empty auditorium.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

However like I said, everything is image and perception is reality, so the Foval termination, the birdogging link to the wikileaks emails is suspicious.

Right, Trump himself and many of the groups that are drawn to him depend on perception being reality, because their claims can't hold up under scrutiny.

That's the role that the media should have, is being responsible to dig through that and holding the claims up to be judged. Unfortunately we're in the age of punditry and social media, whoever's voice is most shrill or gets the most retweets wins. Truthiness.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I mean at the worst, if this is happening and actual people got hurt in this action, then in any normal election it the end of the road for the candidate.

Or at least someone would have to take the fall, but as you say this isn't a normal election. I mean it's widely advertised you can earn thousands of dollars by disrupting a Clinton rally by getting on TV wearing a RAPE shirt and shouting Bill Clinton is a Rapist!

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its tenuous evidence at best, is it worthy of questioning what is seen on the tapes when your electing a commander in chief? I think it is if the raw unedited tapes are released.

Definitely. And I'm sure they know that the unedited tapes would be a MUCH stronger case to convince anyone not already predisposed to believe. But instead they choose to release what they did. Which is as much as I need to know until more information comes forward.

It's the same as the fake Wikileaks documents that have been circulated with Clinton calling Arabs "sand n****rs" and similar. Trump supporters on twitter and other places went NUTS on how terrible this makes her. Alt-right news sites publish with bold headlines. Did they bother to ask for the link to the actual email on Wikileaks site? Nope, it didn't exist.