Presidential debates

[Daskinor]

Valid, but one could say that about mainstream media, and the video clips they show too, could they not? Footage edited to "make a certain point". Happens all the time.

You could, however that kind of thing can be measured in degrees. Where a general news report is a 3, a cable news 'show' report is a 5 and O'Keefe is an 11.

With the recent O'Keefe videos there is a level of illegal collusion, being paid from Trump's Charity. And with his latest hit video over the 'Duck' he cant even get his facts straight. He accuses a Pro Hillary PAC of setting up the guy in the Donald duck costume. Then using her the term "Ducking" in reference to Trump not releasing his tax returns as proof she is colluding with them.

When in fact the DNC was paying for the Duck guy the entire time. Its actually a line item on their monthly filings. And its not illegal for her to work with them directly. If he would of bothered to do any research instead of taking the statements of people and twisting them to fit his narrative.

[mjr]

You could, however that kind of thing can be measured in degrees. Where a general news report is a 3, a cable news 'show' report is a 5 and O'Keefe is an 11.

If you dismiss one, don't you have to dismiss the other to an extent, as well?

With the recent O'Keefe videos there is a level of illegal collusion, being paid from Trump's Charity. And with his latest hit video over the 'Duck' he cant even get his facts straight. He accuses a Pro Hillary PAC of setting up the guy in the Donald duck costume. Then using her the term "Ducking" in reference to Trump not releasing his tax returns as proof she is colluding with them.

I'm not referring to the Duck videos. I haven't watched them. I'm referring to the "election fraud" videos, and the words coming out of the mouths of the people on the videos.

[Daskinor]

If you dismiss one, don't you have to dismiss the other to an extent, as well?



I'm not referring to the Duck videos. I haven't watched them. I'm referring to the "election fraud" videos, and the words coming out of the mouths of the people on the videos.

Do we dismiss them outright or we see them as a point of view where we need to put everything into a context of sorts. Even if a news report has 'bias' it at least has a context we can form an opinion about.

The inherent problem with every O'Keefe is that there is no context. We are given a narrative then feed soundbites to support the narrative. When looking at video 4, the one that claims election fraud directly. You will see two techniques that are rarely used in normal interviews in reputable news programs.

The first is the selective edit. Simply asking questions and answers, then obscuring the original question in post production. A obvious one is asking someone how something can be done 'hypotheticaly' then turn around and edit the video together to say that the person does do it.

The second is the "Gish Gallop" its really an art where you just overload someone with bull crap arguments until they get confused with your statements and questions and answered someway that can be used against them. Throw in a some selective edits and your ready to go.

These are things that he has done. the proof is in unedited videos he had to give up during various legal discoveries.

Those are the tools O'Keefe uses to produce his videos. And it comes down to context , he strips out any context for anything anyone says. Then replaces it with a narrative. It can be seen every time he produces a soundbite or fast cuts question and answer in a video.

Then comes the next thing important to those who produce news, reputation. He has been exposed many times now of misrepresenting peoples statements. He has lost many lawsuits over them where his organization had to pay out. It taints anything he makes because he has know to present untruths as fact.

Also the whole idea of swaying an election in the way reported in the video is laughable at best. It sounds scary as hell in his narrative and with the out of context quotes. But we don't have one election in this over country we have over 11,000. It would be the largest conspiracy ever to somehow manipulate just a handful.

[mjr]

it at least has a context we can form an opinion about.

And what if the context is wrong?

And to piggyback on that, is the mainstream media covering the FACT that even Michael Moore is saying somewhat positive things about Trump, and saying who some of the likely voters will be?

or the FACT that a major news agency had to retract and apologize for a clip of a woman telling people not to burn down their town, but left out the fact that the woman said to go to the suburbs and do it?

Or the FACT that back in the late 1990's, Jesse Jackson praised Donald Trump?

The first is the selective edit.

You mean like the one Katie Couric did in her NRA "interview"? The one she had to apologize for?

The second is the "Gish Gallop" its really an art where you just overload someone with bull crap arguments until they get confused with your statements and questions and answered someway that can be used against them. Throw in a some selective edits and your ready to go.

I don't see how the guy was confused when he said they've been busing people in from other locations "for 50 years" and that they're "going to keep doing it".

Then comes the next thing important to those who produce news, reputation.

Yes, and we all know the general public's opinion of the media right now. I'd say it rates fairly low on the "reputation" scale. Wouldn't you?

He has been exposed many times now of misrepresenting peoples statements.

See: Rather, Dan; Williams, Brian; Couric, Katie.

It would be the largest conspiracy ever to somehow manipulate just a handful.

Need I remind you of two things:

1. The electoral college
2. In 2000, Florida was won by around 500 votes.

Some Congressional seats are won/lost by closer margins than that.

[Daskinor]

And what if the context is wrong?

And to piggyback on that, is the mainstream media covering the FACT that even Michael Moore is saying somewhat positive things about Trump, and saying who some of the likely voters will be?

or the FACT that a major news agency had to retract and apologize for a clip of a woman telling people not to burn down their town, but left out the fact that the woman said to go to the suburbs and do it?

Or the FACT that back in the late 1990's, Jesse Jackson praised Donald Trump?




You mean like the one Katie Couric did in her NRA "interview"? The one she had to apologize for?



I don't see how the guy was confused when he said they've been busing people in from other locations "for 50 years" and that they're "going to keep doing it".



Yes, and we all know the general public's opinion of the media right now. I'd say it rates fairly low on the "reputation" scale. Wouldn't you?



See: Rather, Dan; Williams, Brian; Couric, Katie.




Need I remind you of two things:

1. The electoral college
2. In 2000, Florida was won by around 500 votes.

Some Congressional seats are won/lost by closer margins than that.

Alright I will bite.

1. "And what if the context is wrong?"

In this case you still have the context to make that call. There is a genesis for the statement. You have the information you need to follow the path of questioning to make an informed opinion on the subject.

As for your piggyback question it does not matter in the subject of my discussion. You can find many instances of where other people have done some questionable journalistic practices. It all falls along a spectrum of sorts when you you quantify them as objectivity as possible when deciding to place trust in the organisation as a whole. And in my opinion O'Keefe is incredibly dishonest by any metric and everything he claims needs to be held up to extremely scrutiny.

2. Again because other people do it does not make my original claim more right or wrong. But in this case that she was forced to apologize for it per your example shows some level of journalistic integrity.

3. Was the question about busing in old folks or other people who normally would have trouble making it to their polling place. Because in that context sure its an acceptable practice and completely legal. Or maybe he was talking about outreach staff to get people out to vote. Who knows the conversation leading up to the statement and the direct question itself is not known.

The implication is that they somehow got a large number of people to vote twice or in the wrong place. Something that is much harder than it seems to pull off.

4. My opinion is more neutral. I like to see what ever side is saying before I make a judgment. But in the end its an opinion. They can be clouded by many a bias.

5. Each instance of journalistic failure is something I accept and plays into how much personal stock I put into a statement from any media personality. Again the sliding scale of trustworthiness. I am not going to pretend that some people are on the same level as O'Keefe because of a few instances over an entire career.

6. Every state runs their elections differently, and from there each subdivision of the state runs their elections differently or at least separate from the next subdivision. Each polling station can be its own election just because of how decentralized everything is.

Do not confuse a badly run election (Florida 2000, Iowa 2004) with a fraudulent one. While it is not outside the realm of possibility to influence a single voting location by 500 votes. A result that close is so statistically rare we might never see it again. Plus that is an outcome you don't want to purposefully cause because a recount is all but certain.

[mjr]

First, thank you for the civil discussion on this.

In this case you still have the context to make that call. There is a genesis for the statement. You have the information you need to follow the path of questioning to make an informed opinion on the subject.

Not in all cases. Like the woman who was telling people not to burn down her town, but to do it in the suburbs. CNN didn't issue a retraction/apology until the truth came out and they were called out on it.

You can find many instances of where other people have done some questionable journalistic practices.

No quibble here, however journalists are supposed to report, not influence. Questionable journalistic practices can indeed affect opinion -- and possibly elections. Sometimes it's about intent.

And in my opinion O'Keefe is incredibly dishonest by any metric and everything he claims needs to be held up to extremely scrutiny.

And with the general public's opinion on the media right now, shouldn't everything the media says/reports be held to extreme scrutiny, as well? Including our election coverage?

2. Again because other people do it does not make my original claim more right or wrong. But in this case that she was forced to apologize for it per your example shows some level of journalistic integrity.

But again, she wasn't forced to apologize until the real video came out, and she was called out on it. If this would have been pre-Internet/YouTube/Social media, do you think it may have stayed buried? I do.

3. Was the question about busing in old folks or other people who normally would have trouble making it to their polling place. Because in that context sure its an acceptable practice and completely legal. Or maybe he was talking about outreach staff to get people out to vote. Who knows the conversation leading up to the statement and the direct question itself is not known.

I believe it was about busing in people who were ineligible to vote in an area. To illegally vote. The videos also went into detail about how they'll set up Shadow companies and rent cars for people to drive to polling places in nearby states to vote.

The implication is that they somehow got a large number of people to vote twice or in the wrong place. Something that is much harder than it seems to pull off.

But they go into that in the video. And if it's true, don't you think that's a concern?

4. My opinion is more neutral. I like to see what ever side is saying before I make a judgment. But in the end its an opinion. They can be clouded by many a bias.

5. Each instance of journalistic failure is something I accept and plays into how much personal stock I put into a statement from any media personality. Again the sliding scale of trustworthiness. I am not going to pretend that some people are on the same level as O'Keefe because of a few instances over an entire career.

Again, I think it's sometimes about intent. Journalists are supposed to report facts, not try to influence people.

Do not confuse a badly run election (Florida 2000, Iowa 2004) with a fraudulent one.

IIRC, weren't a lot of Democrats saying that the 2000 election was "stolen" and that Bush was "selected not elected"? Remember that? Wouldn't you consider that people thinking that the election was "fraudulent"?

While it is not outside the realm of possibility to influence a single voting location by 500 votes. A result that close is so statistically rare we might never see it again. Plus that is an outcome you don't want to purposefully cause because a recount is all but certain.

And that one location could be the difference between Candidate A, and Candidate B being elected to an office.

[HYHYBT]

And in my opinion O'Keefe is incredibly dishonest by any metric and everything he claims needs to be held up to extremely scrutiny.

No, they shouldn't. They should be disregarded entirely, and any argument *based* in any way on them should be dismissed on that basis alone, because there's no reason anyone would resort to using that if there were anything real they could use instead.

Wouldn't you consider that people thinking that the election was "fraudulent"?

No. Obviously not. The problem in 2000 was a tight race that was decided by one area that was close enough to deserve a recount, just to make sure, and where issues like ballot design meant it was possible people had voted differently than they'd intended to, not selected a choice at all when they thought they had, etc. Not in the least bit the same thing as fraud.

Now: provide evidence, NOT sourced from someone proven to edit video into deliberate lies, for large groups of people over many years voting more than once or in places they shouldn't.

[mjr]

Now: provide evidence, NOT sourced from someone proven to edit video into deliberate lies, for large groups of people over many years voting more than once or in places they shouldn't.

Honestly, would you think this same thing if videos like that surfaced about Republicans/Conservatives/the RNC? Or would you take them as gospel truth?

I could ask for evidence the other way. Show evidence that they HAVEN'T been voting more than once.

And again, I point to the way the mainstream media edits video, as well. It's not all truthful. Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous.

Hillary says she wants to be "Everyone's President". But I don't hear ANYTHING that she's said that offers any sort of an olive branch to Conservatives.

[HYHYBT]

[quote]onestly, would you think this same thing if videos like that surfaced about Republicans/Conservatives/the RNC? Or would you take them as gospel truth?[/]I would expect EVIDENCE from ANYONE making such claims, yes. Now where is yours?

[mjr]

[QUOTE=HYHYBT;167098]

onestly, would you think this same thing if videos like that surfaced about Republicans/Conservatives/the RNC? Or would you take them as gospel truth?[/]I would expect EVIDENCE from ANYONE making such claims, yes. Now where is yours?

That's good to know. But how much/what kind of evidence would you need? I mean, the National Enquirer isn't really known to be "truthful", but they nailed the John Edwards thing.

True, the videos were edited. So are most (all?) videos you see on CNN. Should we no longer trust them?

The proof of that is what I said earlier. The story of the woman telling people not to burn down her town. CNN got called out on it, had to tell the entire truth, and took a credibility hit.

Should we believe CNN now?

But see, here's the thing. I don't have evidence it's happening, you don't have evidence (other than other people's "word") that it isn't.

But maybe this Chicago CBS affiliate is lying: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/...ond-the-grave/

Or maybe the Miami Herald is untrustworthy: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...111029767.html

Or perhaps this NBC affiliate isn't being forthright: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/po...399027631.html

Or maybe this story out of Philly isn't true...http://6abc.com/politics/action-news...grave/1575596/

[s_stabeler]

nobody is denying voter fraud occurs. What people deny is that a) voter fraud is organised at more than a local level (that is, it's not to benefit "Democrat Senators" as much as "Joe Smith, US Senator from X") and b) that the current level of voter fraud that could be combatted by proposed measures is higher than the number of people who would be disenfranchised by the measures. (all measures that combat voter fraud will disenfranchise a certain number of people that otherwise could legitimately vote. The question is, is the number of legitimate voters disenfranchised higher or lower than the number of fraudulent votes prevented. With Voter ID laws, for example, I believe the answer is higher.)

[mjr]

nobody is denying voter fraud occurs. What people deny is that a) voter fraud is organised at more than a local level (that is, it's not to benefit "Democrat Senators" as much as "Joe Smith, US Senator from X") and b) that the current level of voter fraud that could be combatted by proposed measures is higher than the number of people who would be disenfranchised by the measures. (all measures that combat voter fraud will disenfranchise a certain number of people that otherwise could legitimately vote. The question is, is the number of legitimate voters disenfranchised higher or lower than the number of fraudulent votes prevented. With Voter ID laws, for example, I believe the answer is higher.)

There are also measures we could take, as a country, to ensure everyone has some form of identification to use to vote.

One person, one ballot. If you don't meet the legal criteria to vote, you can't vote. I don't see what's wrong with ensuring that's the case.

[s_stabeler]

Because, as I've said, no system is perfect. The various "Voter ID" laws would disenfranchise more legitimate voters that, for whatever reason can't get the necessary ID than it would prevent voter fraud.

That and frankly? voter fraud tends to be fairly organised. I would be entirely unsurprised if people wanting to commit voter fraud could actually get voter IDs for the fraudulent votes.

[mjr]

Because, as I've said, no system is perfect. The various "Voter ID" laws would disenfranchise more legitimate voters that, for whatever reason can't get the necessary ID than it would prevent voter fraud.

Wouldn't it generally stand to reason, though, that if one is able to register to vote (legally, of course) that they can get an ID?

That and frankly? voter fraud tends to be fairly organised. I would be entirely unsurprised if people wanting to commit voter fraud could actually get voter IDs for the fraudulent votes.

Possibly. But then safeguards could possibly be in place to establish whether or not someone has already voted.

[Kheldarson]

Wouldn't it generally stand to reason, though, that if one is able to register to vote (legally, of course) that they can get an ID?.

No. The requirements for voter registration and getting an ID are different. To register to vote, I just have to fill out a form saying what my age is and where I live. Boom. Registered. You can even sign up via mail.

An ID, though, first of all, has a fee attached to it. If you're part of the working poor who has to make every dollar count, even $5 may be over your limit. Then there's the time cost of getting to the DMV to get the ID. That's time on a bus, possibly added child care costs, or the costs of the headache of bringing your kids with, and that's assuming there's a bus that can take you to the DMV in your area.

But let's say you have the money, time, and means to get there. Now you have to provide two proofs of your residency. These have to be in the form of utility bills. Some apartments roll all your utility costs into one bill, so you now have only one example there. And you're broke, so no cable and you pay for minutes on a phone. So where are you going to get a second proof of residency?

That's why voter ID is an issue: it presumes that everybody is in the same economic position when they're not, thus causing disenfranchisement.