Hacker News Reader

Comment by ludicast | Hacker News Reader

What do you folks make of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

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.

View on HN

Start with http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-vi... and go from there regarding the validity of these videos. tl;dr is that the 'reporter' in this case has a history of making misleading videos by collecting out of context quotes and then splicing in different video segments that make these out of context ones seem sinister.

Given that people have already been fired/quit and others are distancing there must be some truth to these videos. Is there any link attacking the validity of the video itself and not the source?

There does not have to be truth for people to decide to fall upon their swords to avoid any suggestion of a scandal. Given how apparently gullible people are the simple fact is that whether it is true or not does not matter, nor does the actual context in which the conversations occurred. If you worked for a campaign and I had a bar conversation with you about how voting fraud might happen and then only saved/broadcasted the part after your initial "we do everything we can to prevent it, but if you were to ask me how it could happen given existing safeguards then..." bit of the conversation then I would expect to read about you getting fired or quitting the next day as well.

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.

On July 19, 2010, Shirley Sherrod was fired from her appointed position as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture.[1][2] Her firing was an administration reaction to media reports on video excerpts from her address to an event of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in March 2010 and commentary posted by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart on his website.[3] Based on these excerpts, the NAACP condemned Sherrod's remarks as racist and U.S. government officials called on the official to resign. But, after a longer version of her address was reviewed and her remarks were understood to be about the importance of overcoming personal prejudices, the NAACP and White House officials apologized. In addition, United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod

I read that Snopes article this morning, and the thing is, those criticisms don't apply to this new PVA video. Especially so in the second part that was released today, the clips are not at all edited together or taken out of context. Scott Foval essentially has an extended conversation with the undercover reporter in which he lays bare the criminal conspiracy that his organization is attempting to concoct.

The clips are edited together, though. That was my first thought when watching the video. There are a lot of cuts. I get that it might just be for time, to show only the most relevant stuff. But it may also be to make it look worse than it is. Without the full conversation, we can't know.

I thought that about part I, that maybe some of the really terrible lines ("I've payed mentally ill homeless people to do some crazy shit!" or whatever) could be jokes taken out of context, but part II released today is less cobbled together. I don't see how there can be any doubt about the criminal intentions that Scott Foval and Bob Creamer had, and their respective firing and resignation are further evidence of that.

If PV wanted their stuff taken seriously at this point, they would always offer full videos for actual journalists to review and edit. They could license the content and amplify the impact of their work. Instead, they do a hack job to fit their purpose.

None of this is really new, it's just proof is finally coming out. The problem is Trump is so dislikable that it shadows how dislikable Clinton is herself. If the GOP had put forward anyone else other than Trump (and maybe Cruz), this would not even be a race. I'm baffled by people who enthusiastically support either of these two.

Personally I enthusiastically support Clinton because she has inclusionary policies - for a country with such a terrible (and continuing) history of exclusion, it's the right step forward.

Except for those on the right. They're 'irredeemable' 'deplorable' 'racists' and we should cease to do any business with all of them immediately.

I believe she said "half of his supporters" were in that basket and then -specifically- stated that the other half "are people we have to understand and empathize with as well." Sounds inclusionary to me.

Clinton has inclusionary polices?? Can you explain what you mean? She is not as rude and crude as Trump, but she is divisive in her own way.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ - I'd say at least half of those are "inclusionary". Definitely the first 8 if you want to pick up on specific ones.

Most people here are aggressive pro Clinton, I've seen several anti-Clinton stories here suppressed and reported within minutes.

I am amazed by the aggressiveness from both sides this time around.

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's difficult when one side has a clear disinterest in using facts to back up their arguments. See evgen's comment in this thread for an immediate example. How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence for truth is conspiracy theory Youtube videos and right-wing conspiracy theory websites?

Presumably the same way as you have a reasonable discussion with someone whose standard of evidence is an unheard-of dating website that claims to be a UN member which is being conspired against by the UN, and who thinks anyone who finds this fishy is an evil Nazi rape supporter.

What?

That was my general reaction too, followed by wondering if I should start backing away slowly - this was an actual situation I got an unexpected view of yesterday as a result of a whole bunch of Clinton supporters latching onto some dubious claims and refusing to let go, no-one on that side being willing to challenge it, and their claims spilling over slightly into the HN comments. This election is pretty well post-truth.

AFAICT, the one who brought up the Project Veritas was a European who is not very likely to fall cleanly into one "side" or another of our politics.

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 understand your point, but please don't equate a poor kneejerk reaction from citizens with "making up random shit" by elected officials. They are not equivalent and "both sides are equally bad!" is bullshit.

I'm not saying both sides' arguments have equal merit. The problem I'm talking about is that we don't hear the arguments, facts, and logic anymore, from either side. Just name-calling and vitriol, for the most part.

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.

I agree. I had a conversation last night trying to remember if any other time in recent history was this bad. GWB was compared to Hitler quite a lot on the fringe and MSNBC, and Obama had the whole muslim/birther thing on the other fringe and FOX, but on whole most people were pretty level headed.

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.

> People aren't even talking to each other anymore or listening.

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.

Having "lost patience" isn't being "a perfectly open-minded person", especially in light of the wikileaks etc. The media collusion, the FBI info, Combetta/Stonetear, the obvious health issues, etc.

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" isn't being "a perfectly open-minded person"

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.

There seems to be a bimodal distribution occurring.

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?

Absolutely. I was quite surprised to see so many attacks against wiki leaks on HN.

If at this point you haven't made up your mind, I'm not sure what else you need bro

The third debate most likely :). I have them at 1-1 so the winner of this debate will have won twice as many debates as the other. Small sample size I know.

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 know it's your choice and everything but can I ask why you don't just look at their policies.. compared to who wins a debate?

I have, and I am 50/50 split on those :). I sidewith.com had me at 1% point between bernie, hillary and trump.

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)

Establishment Democrats like Clinton agree with: 1, 2, 3, half of 4, 7, 8, 10, 13

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.

I completely don't agree with your "question redistricting". I'm voting for a person not a party.

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.

I was unaware of point 12. Trump is the only major party candidate in my lifetime who might actually do something as awesome as #12. I am still leaning towards a third-party candidate, but that does complicate my dislike for Trump. Thank you for sharing that.

>Intelligence matters.

And you are undecided.

It's doesn't matter above/beyond all issues, otherwise I'd be writing in Cruz, who I agree with on 3% of the issues.

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.

Just rig the election paper.

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.

I don't see how this link is even remotely pertinent to the topic at hand.

More election-year BS leaking onto everything.

edit: sigh. the pro-[candidate] downvote brigade is ever present. This election cannot be over soon enough.

The feasibility of voter fraud is not a potential flaw in an election?

No, conspiracy videos promoting a particular campaign's talking points add nothing to the article as presented.

Leave this sort of crap to Reddit.

He is obviously pro-Trump (me too btw), but there seem to be proven links between some of the people shown in the videos and HRC's campaign.

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)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com