Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gorgon wrote:
How would that work, exactly?

If you could be arsed to watch the video at 10:15, you can watch "Scott Foval, National Field Director at Americans United for Change" explain it in his own words.

"I'm saying that we have mentally ill people that we pay to do gak, make no mistake. Over the last twenty years. I've paid off a few homeless guys to do crazy gak, and I've also taken them for dinner, and I've also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower, and I've put them in a program. I've done that. But the reality is, a lot of people, especially our union guys, a lot of union guys, they'll do whatever you want. They're rock and roll.

...and at 10:58...

"So here you have a schedule of events. We update this on an ongoing rolling basis. Every morning. Those are all the Trump and Pence appearances. Tomorrow for example we are turning 500 people out in front of the Trump International in DC. [...]We have to have a network of people prepared to go wherever these events are, which means we have to have a central kind of agitator training. [...]We have a built in group of people who do this."

11:52.

"I call this conflict engagement. Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies. We're starting anarchy here."

12:05

If you're there, and you're protesting and you're doing these actions you will be attacked at Trump rallies and thats what we want. We know that Trump's people will freak the feth out "

12:46

"When they're outside the rally the media will cover it no matter where it happens.[...]The key is initiating the conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic."

13:44
...A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Does none of this concern you?

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
even if you don't take the Youtuber and his views seriously

Look at what you said there and apply some sense.

I did. Just ignore the fething youtuber and watch the fething clips of Democrats.

You're outright dismissing [and refusing to even look at] evidence of wrong doing simply because you dislike the politics of the source (the Youtuber). Thats confirmation bias.

If you know someone is a habitual liar, then it's not confirmation bias to refuse to listen to him.

If the allegations have any merit, they will be picked up and reported by legitimate and trustworthy sources.

Also: in before something something main stream media something something.

I'm sorry, am I speaking in a foreign language or something? I have told you several times till I'm blue in the face to ignore the Youtuber and just watch the Clips of the Democrats. They start at at 10:15. See my prior post with quotes from Scott Foval if you can't be arsed.

And no, I don't think the Youtuber is a "habitual liar", thats your opinion. And I refuse to argue with you over it, his truthfulness is irrelevant and you are side tracking with this silly little argument and evading my point.

..A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Wait, what? Your argument doesn't make sense in a legal society. If she's disrupting an event then they have the right to have the police remove her as a trespasser. They do not have the right to commit violence on her. Even if she talks like Burt Lancaster.

Or as the Immortal Bard already said on this thread "English, do you speak it!"*


*Not directed at you. I just like typing that.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Asked...repeatedly by you...and answered repeatedly by different posters, I believe. Sorry if the crowd doesn't share your incredulous "rage".

Gotcha. You believe it, you just don't care.

 Frazzled wrote:

..A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Wait, what? Your argument doesn't make sense in a legal society. If she's disrupting an event then they have the right to have the police remove her as a trespasser. They do not have the right to commit violence on her.

Or as the Immortal Bard already said on this thread "English, do you speak it!"*


*Not directed at you. I just like typing that.

Quoting Shakespeare? That was definitely the dog typing...

 Frazzled wrote:

..A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Wait, what? Your argument doesn't make sense in a legal society. If she's disrupting an event then they have the right to have the police remove her as a trespasser. They do not have the right to commit violence on her.

Or as the Immortal Bard already said on this thread "English, do you speak it!"*


*Not directed at you. I just like typing that.

She was trained by Democrat campaigners and sent to an event with the expectation and express desire that she would be subjected to violence so it could be recorded by the media. Thats despicable, both the violence committed by the Trump supporters and the Democrats who set her up to be attacked.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

..A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Wait, what? Your argument doesn't make sense in a legal society. If she's disrupting an event then they have the right to have the police remove her as a trespasser. They do not have the right to commit violence on her.

Or as the Immortal Bard already said on this thread "English, do you speak it!"*


*Not directed at you. I just like typing that.

Quoting Shakespeare? That was definitely the dog typing...

The immortal bard says:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Double reply...weird. MODS, please nuke.

I believe Double Posts correct themselves automatically after a short time. I was trying to respond to your original post but when I clicked the Quote button it kept coming up with this post. ^

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Asked...repeatedly by you...and answered repeatedly by different posters, I believe. Sorry if the crowd doesn't share your incredulous "rage".

Gotcha. You believe it, you just don't care.

Not even close. I do believe it, but as I and others posted earlier in this thread, Campaign politics can be nasty and in the end, are just the noise that accompanies big stakes elections. Just because I don't go on a multi-page jag OVER THE SAME THING BECAUSE I'M NOT GETTING ANYONE TO BITE doesn't mean I don't care.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I'm sorry, am I speaking in a foreign language or something? I have told you several times till I'm blue in the face to ignore the Youtuber and just watch the Clips of the Democrats. They start at at 10:15. See my prior post with quotes from Scott Foval if you can't be arsed.

And no, I don't think the Youtuber is a "habitual liar", thats your opinion. And I refuse to argue with you over it, his truthfulness is irrelevant and you are side tracking with this silly little argument and evading my point.

The quotes from the democrats have no credibility because they are shared by a known and habitual liar who has a long and extensive history of selectively editing his videos to take quotes out of context to make people say things to prove his points and whose tactics have gotten him a conviction.

Your point: "Here is proof of democrats saying horrible things, this video proves it"
My point: "The video was recorded, edited, and shared by a person who is well known for editing recordings to make them untruthful. I will not provide income to the person who is a known liar and will entertain these accusations when they are verified by a trustworthy source."
Your point: "Stop ignoring the edited recordings!"

Even the stuff you quoted from the videos doesn't say what you initially claimed it did.

You claimed the Dems were sending psychotic people to the Trump rallies. The quote you provided was saying that the Trump supporters were psychotic.

And I don't see what world providing a homeless person with a job, a bed, and a shower are bad things. No where in the quote provided shows that the job is illegal or unethical.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

..A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Wait, what? Your argument doesn't make sense in a legal society. If she's disrupting an event then they have the right to have the police remove her as a trespasser. They do not have the right to commit violence on her.

Or as the Immortal Bard already said on this thread "English, do you speak it!"*


*Not directed at you. I just like typing that.

Quoting Shakespeare? That was definitely the dog typing...

The immortal bard says:

Was that a quote from "The Dachshund of Venice"?

indeed.

"If I am cut, do I need bleed? If am I wronged do I not seek re..SQUIRREL!!!"

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

..A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Wait, what? Your argument doesn't make sense in a legal society. If she's disrupting an event then they have the right to have the police remove her as a trespasser. They do not have the right to commit violence on her.

Or as the Immortal Bard already said on this thread "English, do you speak it!"*


*Not directed at you. I just like typing that.

She was trained by Democrat campaigners and sent to an event with the expectation and express desire that she would be subjected to violence so it could be recorded by the media. Thats despicable, both the violence committed by the Trump supporters and the Democrats who set her up to be attacked.

yes, and let's look at the two responses

Hillary & Michele, when they go low, you go high.

Trump, when they go low, you hit lower.

See the difference? Frazz has the right idea on this. Escort the protest to the holding area, offer her tea & coffee, inform her if she leaves you'll drop the charges, and go full paladin mode and pay for her cab ride home. Instead of being shown as the donkey caves they are, they'd reverse that whole image and come off as the good guys.

but by all means keep up with the childish replies of "two wrongs make trump right" That never gets old

frazz if you need a place to hide out with your dogs when WWIII starts, or the end of days, let me know I'll hide you and your dogs. But at this point in the election in my opinion (and we know how trumpers like people who speak their mind) everyone still supporting trump has earned their deplorable badge.

 skyth wrote:
Even the stuff you quoted from the videos doesn't say what you initially claimed it did.

You claimed the Dems were sending psychotic people to the Trump rallies. The quote you provided was saying that the Trump supporters were psychotic.

Yes, sorry about that. I realised that when I went back and sifted through the video for quotes and I directly quoted it above. But my point is still valid - he outright says that he uses mentally ill people for political purposes.

And I don't see what world providing a homeless person with a job, a bed, and a shower are bad things. No where in the quote provided shows that the job is illegal or unethical.

Its not out of charity, its a bribe to get them to carry out political protests on his behalf. If thats not unethical, what is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:


but by all means keep up with the childish replies of "two wrongs make trump right" That never gets old

Since when have I ever said that? I outright said the Trump supporters are despicable. Please withdraw that, its false.

everyone still supporting trump has earned their deplorable badge.

Both sides in this election are "deplorable". Including Democrats who deliberately put mentally ill people and old ladies into potentially violent situations. The fact that the other side is more despicable does not make the other side (your side?) innocent.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Even the stuff you quoted from the videos doesn't say what you initially claimed it did.

You claimed the Dems were sending psychotic people to the Trump rallies. The quote you provided was saying that the Trump supporters were psychotic.

Yes, sorry about that. I realised that when I went back and sifted through the video for quotes and I directly quoted it above. But my point is still valid - he outright says that he uses mentally ill people for political purposes.

Incorrect. It did not actually say that.

And I don't see what world providing a homeless person with a job, a bed, and a shower are bad things. No where in the quote provided shows that the job is illegal or unethical.

Its not out of charity, its a bribe to get them to carry out political protests on his behalf. If thats not unethical, what is?

Again. Go read the quote again. It does not say that.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

..A 69 year old sufferer of COPD is trained and sent to bird-dog at a Trump, with the full expectation and desire that this would put her at risk of violence.

Wait, what? Your argument doesn't make sense in a legal society. If she's disrupting an event then they have the right to have the police remove her as a trespasser. They do not have the right to commit violence on her.

Or as the Immortal Bard already said on this thread "English, do you speak it!"*


*Not directed at you. I just like typing that.

She was trained by Democrat campaigners and sent to an event with the expectation and express desire that she would be subjected to violence so it could be recorded by the media. Thats despicable, both the violence committed by the Trump supporters and the Democrats who set her up to be attacked.

yes, and let's look at the two responses

Hillary & Michele, when they go low, you go high.

Trump, when they go low, you hit lower.

See the difference? Frazz has the right idea on this. Escort the protest to the holding area, offer her tea & coffee, inform her if she leaves you'll drop the charges, and go full paladin mode and pay for her cab ride home. Instead of being shown as the donkey caves they are, they'd reverse that whole image and come off as the good guys.

but by all means keep up with the childish replies of "two wrongs make trump right" That never gets old

frazz if you need a place to hide out with your dogs when WWIII starts, or the end of days, let me know I'll hide you and your dogs. But at this point in the election in my opinion (and we know how trumpers like people who speak their mind) everyone still supporting trump has earned their deplorable badge.

Thats weird. I don't see his reply only your reply to his reply.
1. I am merely quoting THE LAW (I AM THE LAW!!!! ). The law says you have the right to have that person removed as a Tresspasser. You may even have the right to eject that person. You DO NOT have the right to commit battery upon that person.
2. No, thanks but, when the Time of the Great Wienie comes I won't need hiding. They'll need hiding... from me.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


but by all means keep up with the childish replies of "two wrongs make trump right" That never gets old

Since when have I ever said that? I outright said the Trump supporters are despicable. Please withdraw that, its false.

NO,

Thats despicable, both the violence committed by the Trump supporters and the Democrats who set her up to be attacked.

see, you're equating assaulting an elderly woman to exercising free speech at a rally. Those are in no way equal.

doesn't it make you sad that your fellow trumpers are so dumb, and prone to violent they fall for the cheap tricks of the democrats and get played so easily? they got set up and fell for it hook, line & sinker. But again, instead off being in any way a decent human being, they assaulted a 69 year old woman, and that is magnitudes worse than those who sent her.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


but by all means keep up with the childish replies of "two wrongs make trump right" That never gets old

Since when have I ever said that? I outright said the Trump supporters are despicable. Please withdraw that, its false.

NO,

Thats despicable, both the violence committed by the Trump supporters and the Democrats who set her up to be attacked.

see, you're equating assaulting an elderly woman to exercising free speech at a rally. Those are in no way equal.

doesn't it make you sad that your fellow trumpers are so dumb, and prone to violent they fall for the cheap tricks of the democrats and get played so easily? they got set up and fell for it hook, line & sinker. But again, instead off being in any way a decent human being, they assaulted a 69 year old woman, and that is magnitudes worse than those who sent her.

Reminds me of the argument that it's the wife's fault that her husband hit her because she talked back to him...

My wife says if the building didn't want to get sideswiped by her van it wouldn't leap out at her*


*no bs she actually said that.

On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?

Honestly, that wasn't taught when I was back in school. US history class never made it much past WW II. Plus, being a controversial topic, it is likely avoided. No matter how it is brought up, there would be reams of parent complaints.

In this thread:

Someone posts a YouTube clip collection featuring YouTube footage from a known fraud featuring stuff he wants to be true. Same person claims "confirmation bias" when people don't want to look at his video.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?

Judging from my kids:
*college level English
*college level Literature*
*college level Physics
*college level Chemistry*
*college level Calculus*
*college level Statistics*
*micro and macro economics*
*psychology
*college level world history
*anthropolgy
*speech and debate

(GC has taken all these classes, the *s are the only she's taking now-decided to just coast this final year I guess)
So go easy on what the kids are being taught today thing. They're being taught more than you were.

see, you're equating assaulting an elderly woman to exercising free speech at a rally. Those are in no way equal.

When did I ever say they're equal?

doesn't it make you sad that your fellow trumpers are so dumb

My fellow Trumpers? I am not a Trumper. I'm not even American. I actively dislike him and would not vote for him if I were American. I just happen to also dislike Clinton. Talking about the wrong doings of one side does not mean I support the other side.

, and prone to violent they fall for the cheap tricks of the democrats and get played so easily?

So because they fall for it, that absolves the Democrats of any blame?

they got set up and fell for it hook, line & sinker. But again, instead off being in any way a decent human being, they assaulted a 69 year old woman, and that is magnitudes worse than those who sent her.

I agree. The violent assault of a 69 year old woman is objectively worse. But that still doesn't change the fact that they sent her there to get beaten up.

What you seem to be saying is that what the Trumper Republicans did is so bad that what the Democrats did is irrelevant. To you, beating up an old woman is despicable (true). Whereas sending an old woman to be beaten up is merely "bad and childish". Your outrage is selective.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread:

Someone posts a YouTube clip collection featuring YouTube footage from a known fraud featuring stuff he wants to be true. Same person claims "confirmation bias" when people don't want to look at his video.

In response to someone who said he refuses to watch the video (containing the clips) in question because the author (the Youtuber, not the original journalist who filmed the clips) is a "conspiracy theorist". It mattered not whether the Youtuber's claims and comments on the [O'Keefe?] clips were correct or not, he simply dislikes the guy and refused to watch the video and consider the clips on that basis alone.

If you're going to mock me, at least use the full context.

 d-usa wrote:
In this thread:

Someone posts a YouTube clip collection featuring YouTube footage from a known fraud featuring stuff he wants to be true. Same person claims "confirmation bias" when people don't want to look at his video.

Umm, but you are ignoring ACORN selling aborted fetuses to get votes for Planned Parenthood/Obama.

The main argument seems to be that hiring homeless people for and letting elderly/disabled be vocal for political activities is bad. So if you hire some homeless dudes to waive signs or let an elderly person with health problems scream at psychos who then beat her up you are obviously terrible. Even if the only evidence may be from one or two guys talking that may or may not be taken wholly out of context.

Or something.

Seriously, the mental gymnastics required to equate what is one of the most reprehensible presidential campaigns in memory with a rather ho-hum moderate, almost stereotypical, politician is astounding. I don't even remotely like HRC, and yet can't help but find her to look like a veritable saint in light of the sheer insanity being hurled at her. Previous elections have largely been between candidates with different positions; this one involves different realities! The bomb thrower tactics of condemning the whole system are kind of insane if you don't offer any better alternative than just burning it all down with everyone inside. Especially considering that the US is still one of the most prosperous and powerful nations in the history of the world.

The YouTuber posting the clip collection is a conspiracy theorist. The original "journalist" is a convicted fraud with a known history of lying.

Your basic idea about what the video shows is crap.
The clip collection is crap.
The original "journalist" is crap.

That's the full context about why nobody is giving a feth about the damn video.

Emotions are running high here, so I will intervene and save this thread from the wrath of the MODS.

Time for some armchair diplomacy and geopolitics 101.

100 or so pages ago, I did a Trump foreign policy special, now it's time for a Clinton foreign policy special.

I think we've all accepted that Clinton will win, and although this is the year of voters suprising the pollsters and the experts ( see BREXIT as a good example of this) I think we can safely say that history will be made in January when America's first female President takes the oath of office.

So, what can we expect from a Clinton foreign policy?

First and foremost, Clinton has an advantage over Bush and Obama. Bush and Obama were relatively inexperienced in the realms of foreign affairs when they took office, but Clinton, with time served at the State Department, will hit the ground running...

Alas, this is where the problems start. Clinton believes in Liberal Intervention, and the same people at the Pentagon, are the same people who advised Bush, and then Obama, and now they will advise Clinton...

And that means Libya, Syria, Iraq...

Syria deserves special mention, because Assad and Putin are the only game in town. America will have to do a deal with Putin and effectively re-legitamise the Assad regime, not easy when you've spent the last 5 years arming rebel groups that want to topple Assad, and even harder when you've spent the last 5 years blaming Russia for starting a new 'Cold War,' and of course their is the thorny issue of hacking...

If Clinton is sensible, she'll cut her losses, accept that the Russians won the day, and walk away...

So expect to see Clinton double down on a losing position and make a bad situation worse...

For Ukraine, the same applies. The USA should accept it has no strategic interest in that part of the world, walk away, and cut your losses.

However, Syria and Ukraine are the least of Clinton's problems - there is a giant China shaped shadow looming on the horizon...

Every empire that has ever been has always had a showdown with a rival...

For Rome it was Carthage, for Britain, it was France, then Germany, and for the USA, it will be China...

First and foremost, a showdown does not mean war, because nobody wants to be ruled by the mutant crab overlords and their cockroach shock troops.

Luckily for the USA, it has a strong hand to play in Asia.

It has allies who are fearful of Chinese ambition, and it has geography on its side. A ssytem of alliances can easily surround China with a ring of 'steel.'

China is well aware of these Geographical limitations, hence its activity in the South China sea...

But perhaps the strongest card the USA has to play is North Korea. Yes, North Korea...

North Korea is a Chinese ally, but is is also a major liability...

Every time the Great Leader starts launching missles, Seoul gets nervous...

And every time Seoul gets nervous, the USA should be standing there and suggesting things like missle defence shields, or why not have a nuclear weapon of your own just to balance things up a bit.

And the best part is there's not a damn thing China can say about it because all Seoul and Washinton have to do is point towards North Korea and say they started it...

So you now have Japan and South Korea bringing their militaries up to speed.

And China can't lose the North as an ally, so it does nothing... Win win for the USA!!!! Yeah!!!

Washington should really send a thank you note to North Korea...

And then there is Russia...

Why the USA and Russia are at each other's throats I'll never know. The Cold War is over...

The USA and Russia will never be close friends, and Russia support for Iran and the USA's support for Saudi Arabia will always see some problems, but a good working relationship between the countries for terrorism would be a sensible thing.

Not for a minute do I suggest that the USA roll up the white flag here, but realpolitik should be the order of the day.

The USA's priority in the 21st century is China. Why waste time and pick fights with Russia? They don't have to do it...

Russia nd China are allies, the USA should be looking to do a Richard Nixon on them...

To sum up, Clinton should be measured, calm, and be guided by realpolitk here: Is this really in the USA's interest to do X or do Y?

Avoid needless showdowns and confrontations in places where you have lost (Syria, Libya), recognise you have a strong hand in Asia, and only intervene when every advanatge lies with the USA.

And above all, stay the hell away from the Middle East!

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
On a side note, apparently after yesterday's POTUS debate, Google reported the top search question last night was "What's Roe v Wade?"...what is being taught, or not taught, in school today?

Judging from my kids:
*college level English
*college level Literature*
*college level Physics
*college level Chemistry*
*college level Calculus*
*college level Statistics*
*micro and macro economics*
*psychology
*college level world history
*anthropolgy
*speech and debate

(GC has taken all these classes, the *s are the only she's taking now-decided to just coast this final year I guess)
So go easy on what the kids are being taught today thing. They're being taught more than you were.

Yeah, as a relatively recent high school graduate (2014), my classes were great. Now in the History parts of social studies often varies depending on the teacher how fary you get, but for Civics, you learn all the big cases. And the AP system is great. I got art and chem credits from those.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

, and prone to violent they fall for the cheap tricks of the democrats and get played so easily?

So because they fall for it, that absolves the Democrats of any blame?

what exactly are the democrats to be blamed for? they did nothing illegal. the trumper clearly did something illegal.

What you seem to be saying is that what the Trumper Republicans did is so bad that what the Democrats did is irrelevant. To you, beating up an old woman is despicable (true). Whereas sending an old woman to be beaten up is merely "bad and childish". Your outrage is selective.

yes my outrage is selective based on the severity of the crime. on the democrats hand, no crime was committed, on the trumpers hand, a crime was committed.
sending someone to disrupt an event is not illegal, assaulting them for it is.

see the difference?