I have been a way for a few days, and in terms of "thread years" this is old, so I wont rehash this.
You asked, so I will answer :)
How do we learn that? According to White House Logs, Creamer made over 300 visits to the WH since 2009 and over 40 times with Potus. Creamer (a convicted felon) is one of the people in the video and was (since fired or otherwise removed) in fact the head guy at the super PAC. Which leads me to the conclusion that higher ups were involved. Now, in video 3, we learn according to Creamer, that HRC was aware of the workings of the agitators and specifically wanted the Donald Ducks at DJT rallies. From what I understand, the communication of candidate, DNC and Super PAC is a violation of Campaign Finance Law but I could be wrong.
As for sources, in more recent posts, you ask that another poster check his sources as the poster is perhaps being manipulated. You've sent me to NPR and Mother Jones on previous occasions. By sending these, are you making the contention that these are not manipulative ? I am sure you know I would disagree.
We have now seen that HRC campaign has been linked to 65 members of the media recently. We also have seen countless of links thru Wikileaks of the HRC campaign to supposedly un-biased journalists. We know of private parties at Podesta's house for members of the media that are "off the record".
I am just saying that you are right the sources we are attracted can be manipulative. (they know their viewership in some cases, and in some cases, it's who they are)
What draws us to certain sources? Is it pre-programmed ? Is it that those sources re-inforce a belief that we already have? Why is it easy for one to believe their own source is not manipulative while the others have to be?
Why can we see others hypocrisy but not our own? Some would say it is hypocritical of HRC to deny the accusers of WJC yet continually bash DJT on his accusers. Likewise for DJT. He bashes WJC but if the allegations on him are true, who is he to talk?
Why can one side hate DJT for all his lies but look the other way with all HRC's lies?
I am not so naive to think that both sides are not doing the same things. One just got caught this time. Next time it might be the other - again.
Its been while since I saw it but Idiocracy was ok. The premise was good but I remember being bored thru most of it. I will make an effort to see it again.
Also BTW - the name in the Enquirer Fixer story has been released.
Knickoftime wrote:GoNyGoNyGo wrote:From what I can tell, you have an issue with anyone saying that HRC is guilty or "corrupt" corrupt because in the latest scandal, the FBI has cleared her and that is all that we have to base our opinions on. Because the FBI chose not to prosecute her for this case, we the people, need to then follow the "rule of the law" and also make the same determination. To do otherwise, shows that we would have bias against her. In a court of law, you would be correct, I could not say she is guilty if she has not been convicted of a crime. I would have to use the words "alleged" or "allegedly".
Then we agree.
I don't have any issue with anyone holding a partisan opinion, in the sense I cannot dispute the existence of confirmation bias.
When I speak up is when people conflate facts with opinions. You think HRC is corrupt, knock yourself out. I think if you actually review the record you'll find I haven't disputed your opinion.
But discourse is important. How we talk is important, because you and I both know all it takes is for people to hear anyone say what they want to believe in order for them to believe it is evidence.
THAT's the danger of a low-information electorate. You have your opinion of HRC and you're entitled. I personally think you do yourself and everyone else a disservice by embellishing your points, because calls into question of your credibility - of what you really know as opposed to what you think you know.
Is that lawyerly? Yes, it is. That's why in vital matters we rely on people who understand and are practiced in the law rather than leaving it t people armed with homespun wisdom.
You see the courtroom scene in Idiocracy?
I think you will agree that the UK forum is NOT a court of law . It is a discussion board about the NY Knicks on the internet. It is in the court of public opinion. To be clear, "IMO" means in my opinion. We all have a right to our own opinion. I infer from many of your posts that you do not like the way I and maybe some others form our opinions.
You'd infer correctly. As always, it is not a question of your right to have an opinion. But again, it is dangerous to advance this worldview that all opinions are created equal. You and I have both seen people spout dumbass, ill-informed opinions. Why are we moving away from recognizing that?
In the past, HRC and WJC have ALLEGEDLY been involved in numerous scandals or incidents. Honestly there are too many to list. I am sure if you Google it, you can find some. You will also find that she was never convicted of any crimes. They were fined and forced to give things back and she was even called a "congenital liar" by the NY times. But nothing ever stuck for conviction. however, many lower level associates also involved were convicted and imprisoned. This all leads to my "confirmation bias", as you like to call it. Or as I call it, my duty as a citizen to keep an eye on the government and its leaders. You can choose to do otherwise, if you wish.
I do not. I've made my position clear. This is a binary equation.
That said, there does come a point in which false information begins to get lost in the genuine information. Until such a time in which HRC is actually connected to this Veritas thing, I don't connect it to her. But if you connect it to her sans evidence and just based on likelihood given the weight of previous allegations, then that becomes part of the body of allegations next time.
I do wonder how much of this body of allegations informing your viewpoint is similar. How much of it is genuine concerns (of which I agree exist) and how much of it is based on the same logic.
I DO genuinely think we've gotten to the people where people paint HRC more as a Bond villain or cartoon character than a real human being, but that is just an opinion.
I'll take this back to basketball. We're both Knicks fans. Objectively speaking, over the last 12-14 years they've stunk. Sans a brief respite for a couple of years, they've bordered from objectively awful to underperforming expectations.
Yes, the perception exists that the media irrationally hates them. Barkley hates them. Hollinger hates them, etc.
But we're fans, we generally anticipate the best case scenario. So most summers-falls Knicks fans get all out of sorts when the "haters" make dire predictions for the upcoming season. We dismiss their pessimism as bias and criticize them. And THAT's what we remember. Our impression of them as overly negative and haters solidify.
What doesn't seem to matter is they've been far more right than we have been all this time. We don't remember in June the guy who predicted 32 wins in October was generous when they actually win 23. What's sticks with us is how wrong and bias we think he was in October when he makes a new prediction.
Who has been more right than wrong and more right than us about the KNicks all this time. John Hollinger. Yet ask most Knicks fans and they'll tell you he's just a hater, despite a body of work that we can all connect.
But it's not. It's not because then we learn that the very same people on the video made hundreds...HUNDREDS..of visits since 2009 to the WH and met on more than 20 times with POTUS.
How do we learn that?
I choose to stand against the alleged corruption that I see and the lewd behavior (on both sides) that I see. I do not have the power to indict them or gather enough of the facts myself. AT this point, I have to rely on others to do so. I do however, read what is gathered after analyzing that through MY lenses, I decide with MY opinion, MY voice and MY vote. No one gets to censor me. That's called Facism and its something, I think you will agree, that no one wants.
That'a fine. I believe all I've done is engaged you in a civil debate about these issues. But I think we've both observed enough to know this works both ways.
The term "elite" is thrown around to describe anyone who questions the judgment of people who believe the entire system is rigged and corrupt. People want to question power, but some highly resent being questioned themselves.
More often than not, charges of 'censor'ship and defiant expressions of the right to have and express and opinion come from one side, and it's as it always is totally irrelevant point which I think illustrates a influencing mindset.
It's kneejerk at this point. Push back against the wisdom and validity of an opinion and they go to the "it's my right and nobody can take that away well."
Questioning the quality of someone's opinion is in no way trying to take it away from them.
You seem like a smart guy. Ask yourself why these two things are so often conflated and confused and maybe you'll recognize an important omnipresent influencing factor.
Corruption is a legitimate issue facing this nation.
Subconscious resentment and defiance is another.
10/24/2016 11:01 PM LAST EDITED: 10/24/2016 11:03 PM
