The Politics Sexual Assault Thread

[visionary]

 

[Jumbo]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I hear gingers have no soul, guess it makes it easier for evil to move in.

 

sure is good to be able to judge by looks again 

 

I was just going to like your post per the redhead, cuz i think you know my position on that topic , but now i have to add that while your latter comment has a well-deserved place in "folk wisdom" it is amazing what a skilled observer can accurately discern about a human just by their "looks"---though not so much an isolated image like that---those might be revealing at times but can also be very misrepresentative. Not in her case, however. 

 

Most people tell you a great deal about themselves "just" by their appearance if you know what you're seeing. 

 

The saying is "appearances can be deceiving" but they're often far more credible testimony than what many people have to say about themselves. 

 

Case in point---our swine in chief and virtually every piggy in his posse.

 

 

[twa]

More Quackery?

[Jumbo]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

More Quackery?

 

 

Asks the True Believer. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, visionary said:

 

Never imagine a day would come when I would be SURPRISED that our President is NOT campaigning for a pedophile.   

[visionary]

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Never imagine a day would come when I would be SURPRISED that our President is NOT campaigning for a pedophile.   

Well, despite what they say, he’s still sort of campaigning for him...just not with him.

[ExoDus84]

34 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Never imagine a day would come when I would be SURPRISED that our President is NOT campaigning for a pedophile.   

 

I mean, Cheeto Don bragged about sexual assault. Lowlife deviants have to stick together.

[StillUnknown]

 

[@DCGoldPants]

That Jaime Philips story is insane. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is what we’re working against people. A serious and concerted effort to discredit jouralism. These people are ****s.

[Cooked Crack]

Disgusting that people would pretend to be victims of sexual assult to score political points. Just makes it harder to actual victims. Screw O'Keefe and the people who enable that scumbag.

[Busch1724]

Is there any legal action that can be taken?

[@DCGoldPants]

25 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

Is there any legal action that can be taken?

Guessing not. By the reaction at O'Keefe's operation online. Seems public shaming is it. 

 

I'm a little surprised nobody as "infiltrated" that operation. 

[visionary]

 

[Predicto]

5 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

Welp, he just handed the race to Moore on a silver platter.  Those few GOP diehards who can't vote for Moore now have someone else to vote for without helping his opponent.   

 

I knew this was coming.   the GOP establishment may not like Moore, but they care more about keeping the seat - even if Moore is sitting in it.  This will allow them to look like they still have some integrity.   lol 

[DogofWar1]

James O'Keefe is a horrible human being.

Project Veritas is a pile of garbage the world would be better without.

People who still put any stock in Project Veritas or O'Keefe are morons.

 

In case anyone has forgotten.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

This is what we’re working against people. A serious and concerted effort to discredit jouralism. These people are ****s.

 

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

Disgusting that people would pretend to be victims of sexual assult to score political points. Just makes it harder to actual victims. Screw O'Keefe and the people who enable that scumbag.

 

Disagree - keeping journalists (many aren't even that) in check is important.

 

Remember the rolling Stones article that falsely threw an entire fraternity and university under the bus over a made up gang rape?

 

I dont know anything about that organization. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not performing and honest service to society, but instead trying to push an agenda. I'm sure the plan was to put a 'see this one is made up, maybe the others are too' narrative out there to boost the poles.

 

But I like the media being tested. They're not special and they sure as hell have lost their standards over the last 10 years.

[Cooked Crack]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

Disagree - keeping journalists (many aren't even that) in check is important.

 

Remember the rolling Stones article that falsely threw an entire fraternity and university under the bus over a made up gang rape?

 

I dont know anything about that organization. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not performing and honest service to society, but instead trying to push an agenda. I'm sure the plan was to put a 'see this one is made up, maybe the others are too' narrative out there to boost the poles.

 

But I like the media being tested. They're not special and they sure as hell have lost their standards over the last 10 years.

It's good the Post can flex about this but they're routinely tested. We don't hear about it because they never publish it. That's the sign of a good journalism. If this was a lone rando we'd have never heard of it. 

 

The whole Rolling Stones episode was terrible. The accuser and Rolling Stones. The accuser for hurting for actual victims by making up BS and Rolling Stones for not doing due diligence. Rolling Stones ruined any reputation they might have had. Don't remember the last time I've seen an article from them.

[visionary]

The whole point of the trick was to help Moore, and make people distrust reporting (except when done by the far right) and accusers, not to test the Post.  

Edited November 28, 2017 by visionary

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

Disagree - keeping journalists (many aren't even that) in check is important.

 

Remember the rolling Stones article that falsely threw an entire fraternity and university under the bus over a made up gang rape?

 

I dont know anything about that organization. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not performing and honest service to society, but instead trying to push an agenda. I'm sure the plan was to put a 'see this one is made up, maybe the others are too' narrative out there to boost the poles.

 

But I like the media being tested. They're not special and they sure as hell have lost their standards over the last 10 years.

 

I don't have a problem with fact checking the media. Yeah, they certainly have a tendency to over-pursue the squirrel of the moment. 

 

That is not what O'Keefe does, and never has been. His entire Schlick, at least from the first time I heard of him, (ACORN), has been to create infomercials advertising Republican talking points which he, himself, knows are false when he sets out. (If he thought they were true, he wouldn't set out to manufacture evidence). 

 

I've never watched a single thing Michael Moore has produced, ever since reading about how much fraud he manufactured in Columbine. Things like taking partial sentences from recordings and editing them together to manufacture a recording of people saying a sentence which they never actually said. 

 

O'Keefe does the same thing, only more so. 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

The whole point of the trick was to help Moore, and delegitimize reporting and accuser, not to test the Post.  

I get that. Without knowing the organization I feel ok assuming that was the case.

 

I was speaking more to the general idea. Not against the media being tested and I can't think of a way to do that without sounding tasteless - it's the sensational stuff that gets rushed to be put out there (usually)

 

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, visionary said:

The whole point of the trick was to help Moore, and make people distrust reporting (except when done by the far right) and accusers , not to test the Post.  

 

Agreed. This wasn't fact-checking the actual accusers. This was an attempt to smear the accusers by manufacturing evidence to prop up a lie. 

 

Just like "Bernie Bernstein" was. Prop up the lie. 

 

[visionary]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

I get that. Without knowing the organization I feel ok assuming that was the case.

 

I was speaking more to the general idea. Not against the media being tested and I can't think of a way to do that without sounding tasteless - it's the sensational stuff that gets rushed to be put out there (usually)

I think the biggest problem with reporting isn't fact checking for most of the main news sources (outside Fox), it's when reporters cover stories on subjects that they don't really have a lot of experience on because it is somewhat related to what they normally cover or they have an interest in it.  For instance, cyber, foreign policy, or law related articles where they don't really know what they're talking about.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by visionary

[tshile]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

I think the biggest problem with reporting isn't fact checking for most of the main news sources (outside Fox), it's when reporters cover stories on subjects that they don't really have a lot of experience on because it is somewhat related to what they normally cover or they have an interest in it.  For instance, cyber, foreign policy, or law related articles where they don't really know what they're talking about.  

Agreed.

Ive seen more bogus "cyber" articles by supposedly reputable news sources that it's frustrating.

 

I imagine people privy to foreign policy or law think the same things when they read some articles.