To examine the validity of the video we would actually need all of it, but that is not the point for O'Keefe. His goal is to maintain his street cred with the trumpistas and ratfucking part of the community that might keep paying him after having fallen so far with his last few failed attempts. Given the source and this source's history of manipulating videotaped conversations on multiple occasions to create a narrative that does not match what actually happened, it is smarter to start assuming the videos are a lie and asking for proof that this is not another case of misleading edits. Show me the whole tape or I will assume O'Keefe is telling lies again.
People aren't even talking to each other anymore or listening. No one seems to want to find out why someone would pick a certain candidate over the other. Very sad and scary.
It seemed to me to be a legitimate question for an outsider to ask: these videos seem to be showing evidence of voter fraud, so how do American liberals defend their opposition to voter ID? Whether this is a credible source or not is one thing, but the guy who brought them up seemed to be making a good-faith attempt at fact-based reasoning and understanding. In any case, he clearly is not in any way representative of the side you seem to be referring to (American conservatives).
I mostly consider myself a liberal, but this cycle I see BOTH sides almost entirely divesting themselves of facts. For Trumpites, this takes the form of making up random shit, and for liberals, this takes the form of screaming racist/homophobic/xenophobic/Islamophobic at the slightest provocation, even when there's no necessary logical connection to make that claim. For instance, the idea that anyone who wants proper borders and citizenship procedures to be followed must be a racist. Not only is it illogical, that kind of name-calling directly contributes to Trump's success by making "normal" people in "flyover country" feel like they have nowhere else to go.
In short, it is not really constructive or true to pretend like all the facts are on one side and all the problems are on the other.
I am not just talking about the actions of "some Democrats" here. It's more than just some, but HRC herself is not at all innocent of inciting racial and gender-based tension for her own political gain. I can provide numerous examples if you need them.
I think the Democrats would win on the merits on most issues, but neither they nor their opponents are even discussing the issues anymore.
As for the question of "who is worse" on non-factual issues, like the many despicable antics of Trump versus the hypocrisies and distortions of HRC, it's not a question I'm interested in or a game I wish to play. It seems to me that partisans on both sides will conclude the other side is worse, and there is no available standard for resolving it.
In previous election cycles, I've been party to some passionate discussions. This time around, it seems that there are a bunch of people shouting vitriol, but there also some who are making an effort to be dispassionate and rational, even more so than in past elections.
So in elections past, there would always be moderately vigorous disagreement, now we have either really nasty stuff, or people honestly trying to understand each other.
That latter group is promising. On the other hand, does it portend a two-tier electorate, one that's really trying to do democracy, and the other (larger) group just shouting populist shibboleth?
I wonder if social media, where you gain followers with extreme comments, has led to this? My FB feed is story after story of either Trump will launch nukes his first day in office or the terrorist will take out the US on Clintons first day. The hyperbole just drowns out any rational argument.
In fairness to "people," a perfectly open minded person could have lost patience with "This Clinton scandal will totally blow your mind!" way back in the nineties. If you've been carefully parsing the soundness of every manufactured Clinton scandal since the early nineties, I feel for you.
The main issue is whether or not you believe that's business as usual. And it might be, I'm not discounting that.
Having lost patience is a function of applying heuristics to the never-ending, time-consuming task of evaluating information. I'd say open-mindedness refers more to an outlook, a goal or an attitude. They're not mutually exclusive. I get that the language is imprecise.
A person who simply dismissed every incoming datum which fell into the "This Clinton scandal will totally blow your mind!" category would have been right very close to 100% of the time, which is a pretty good heuristic. If need be, that same person can simply wait for the evidence to mount and then alter their opinion.
I have pity for anyone who really feels obligated to separate the wheat from the chaff (in the interest of open-mindedness!) when it comes to every outraged Clinton news item.
If he is idiotic and has all of his points torn apart, I will have a hard time pulling the lever for him. Intelligence matters.
But if he wins, and then will have won 2 out of 3 debates against a person who spent a month home prepping for them and avoiding the people of this country, that would be very compelling.
It all depends on him making a full heel-face-turn for tonight's rubbermatch.
I
1 - am rabidly pro-choice
2 - think the second amendment is pretty good as is, maybe with a few additional checks.
3 - default pro-cop but think we have too many laws
4 - like the wall but not a fan of massive deportations
5 - would not like to have the migrant influx that europe has, even if the crisis is partly our fault
6 - anti-PC
7 - pro pot-legalization (that's actually more repub this go-round)
8 - believe in climate change
9 - pro-israel
10 - want liberal supreme court justices
11 - think we are taking a very naive approach to the risk of terrorism in order to avoid offending many groups
12 - massively turned on by this https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps...
13 - have to admit if you put them in a box and made them play jeopardy with only geographic/polysci questions, he would get killed.
14 - want less of the typical pro-jesus anti-gay slant the old guard GOP has had (admittedly that's not him but is the Silver Fox at his side)
Disagree with: other half of 4, probably 11
Republicans agree with: half of 2, 3, half of 4
Republicans disagree with: 1, other half of 2, 3, other half of 4, 7, 8, 10, 14
Toss-ups, non-issues, and uselessly vague include 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12.
I dunno, it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
For example, 3 is solidly not Hillary. Speakers she had at the DNC, tweets after Dallas shooting, on and on.
Trump is 100% pro-lgbt and has never been a christian, so 14 isn't him.
Trump also is for legalizing medicinal and letting states determine recreational, so 7 is him, not her (have a strong sense from things she's written that she won't legalize).
And the ones you earmarked as toss-ups etc are more him. They also are VERY important to ME, so not the non-issues you paint them as.
There's a few others like this. But I have to go.
And you are undecided.
If Trump had 10 or more extra IQ points, he would be an easier sell to me. I do feel his ridiculous energy levels might compensate for this and then some, not sure though.
A sane person can't vote for either of them.
But a good citizen's duty is to vote. Write my name on it.
If you vote for Trump you're a bigot. If you vote for Hillary you're a hypocrite.
More election-year BS leaking onto everything.
edit: sigh. the pro-[candidate] downvote brigade is ever present. This election cannot be over soon enough.
Leave this sort of crap to Reddit.
Notably Zulema Rodriguez who bragged that she took part in inciting the Chicago protest has received payments from the Clinton campaign a few days before the protests (listed on the FEC website - link: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transactio... )
What's also interesting is that most people shown in the videos are contributors to Huffington Post and some of them switch between sometimes being a contributor and sometimes being mentioned as "activist" with a fake name. Aaron Black wrote one article as a Catholic priest and another one as a gay man suffering from AIDS. (I get the impression that Huffington Post and really most of the media just makes up stories or that they are being played)
Against: O'Keefe is not a perfect journalist, as agenda-driven as anyone anywhere
For: These people were on the payroll, fired right after it happened, and Bob Creamer met with Obama 300 times. https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald has done a great job "following the money" even if they are massively biased.
My vote is still up for grabs (tonight's debate might settle it), but a YUGE part of me does want to see an impartial investigation. The kind we won't get with Comey/Clinton/Lynch.
Side note - very good PR of them to drop the video right after Obama criticized Trump for his rigging claims.