(11-03-2018 10:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Watched most of the video - pretty much seems to match the quality of other Project Veritas hit jobs. I don't know how you give them the time of day after they've been found altering videos (ACORN, Planned Parenthood) and trying and failing to entrap journalists (Roy Moore).
Really, why do you give them the time of the day? James O'Keefe is an unethical twat.

I've met him, by the way. Spent a week on the same cruise ship with him.

So, he's an unethical twat. How does that change the words spoken on video by the people who spoke them?

My other question is he's pretty well known by now, so how is it that he can get these people to say these things on video?

(11-03-2018 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:To tie a bow on another example of shoddy and ethically questionable "journalism," Snopes has a good summary.
Quote:
...Some of the footage posted on 1 November also appeared to show campaign staff discussing the possibility of using campaign vehicles to give rides to migrants, but the video did not show anyone actually doing that or even talking about having taken that action. In response to our questions, the O’Rourke campaign asserted that no staff had used campaign vehicles to give rides to any migrants.
...The footage published by O’Keefe on 1 November did not constitute evidence of a member of the O’Rourke campaign team’s using campaign funds to give supplies directly to the migrants, as opposed to donating them to Annunciation House, a registered charity in El Paso.
We asked the O’Rourke campaign whether any of their staff had given supplies purchased with campaign money directly to any migrants. A spokesperson firmly denied this, writing: “Absolutely not. The materials were dropped off to Annunciation House … at the donation site Annunciation House had set up.”
We asked Project Veritas whether it had uncovered any evidence (not shown in their video) of O’Rourke’s campaign staff providing supplies directly to the migrants (as opposed to the charity). A spokesperson for the organization did not directly answer that question but reiterated that they had found evidence of campaign staff discussing an intention to buy supplies for the migrants and to give them rides in a campaign vehicle.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beto-o...-migrants/

So, the film doesn't show actually giving the supplies, money, or whatever, and the O'Rourke campaign has issued a self-serving denial. On that basis you conclude tat there is no problem with the campaign staff cavalierly discussing committing illegal acts and covering them up. Got it.

Have you applied that same standard to members of the other party? Such as perhaps Donald Trump? Link?

No, the campaign said that supplies were donated, but to a charity, which is legal. And the campaign says these donations will be documented with the FEC, as required.

The only denial of action is with regards to the vans they used.

Go ahead and do some investigations into the van use - that's the standard I've applied to Trump. I've got no issue if the FEC wanted to open an investigation into this video, I think there would be grounds. Seems rather small potatoes though, no?

(11-03-2018 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the former, my recollection if that they asked about hypothetical situations or edited out the portion of the conversation where the employees said not to do it. In one case, an ACORN employee played along with O'Keefe and then immediately referred him to the police (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2...030014bd).
To the latter, they spoke about taking campaign funds and donating them to charity (not an illegal act) or using a van to help move legal immigrants around. It was stupid to not just kick it up the ladder immediately to confirm that the campaign infrastructure was OK with this. But yeah, I'm pretty much OK with them discussing assisting poor and needy people. The more I read about the campaign laws governing their actions, the less I care given the magnitude of the dollars spent.

IIRC, ACORN fired someone or ones over the ACORN video. I would presume that they did enough due diligence to conclude that there was a real problem.

So, illegal acts are okay as long as my team is doing them. If you want to go that way, it's your right.

(11-03-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:To tie a bow on another example of shoddy and ethically questionable "journalism," Snopes has a good summary.
Quote:
...Some of the footage posted on 1 November also appeared to show campaign staff discussing the possibility of using campaign vehicles to give rides to migrants, but the video did not show anyone actually doing that or even talking about having taken that action. In response to our questions, the O’Rourke campaign asserted that no staff had used campaign vehicles to give rides to any migrants.
...The footage published by O’Keefe on 1 November did not constitute evidence of a member of the O’Rourke campaign team’s using campaign funds to give supplies directly to the migrants, as opposed to donating them to Annunciation House, a registered charity in El Paso.
We asked the O’Rourke campaign whether any of their staff had given supplies purchased with campaign money directly to any migrants. A spokesperson firmly denied this, writing: “Absolutely not. The materials were dropped off to Annunciation House … at the donation site Annunciation House had set up.”
We asked Project Veritas whether it had uncovered any evidence (not shown in their video) of O’Rourke’s campaign staff providing supplies directly to the migrants (as opposed to the charity). A spokesperson for the organization did not directly answer that question but reiterated that they had found evidence of campaign staff discussing an intention to buy supplies for the migrants and to give them rides in a campaign vehicle.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beto-o...-migrants/

So, the film doesn't show actually giving the supplies, money, or whatever, and the O'Rourke campaign has issued a self-serving denial. On that basis you conclude tat there is no problem with the campaign staff cavalierly discussing committing illegal acts and covering them up. Got it.

Have you applied that same standard to members of the other party? Such as perhaps Donald Trump? Link?

No, the campaign said that supplies were donated, but to a charity, which is legal. And the campaign says these donations will be documented with the FEC, as required.

The only denial of action is with regards to the vans they used.

Go ahead and do some investigations into the van use - that's the standard I've applied to Trump. I've got no issue if the FEC wanted to open an investigation into this video, I think there would be grounds. Seems rather small potatoes though, no?

I am glad that the standard you promulgate is that a self-serving explanation will be the one accepted by you with no other proof. Should make a lot of other issues for you on this board very easy to put to rest.

(11-03-2018 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:To tie a bow on another example of shoddy and ethically questionable "journalism," Snopes has a good summary.
Quote:
...Some of the footage posted on 1 November also appeared to show campaign staff discussing the possibility of using campaign vehicles to give rides to migrants, but the video did not show anyone actually doing that or even talking about having taken that action. In response to our questions, the O’Rourke campaign asserted that no staff had used campaign vehicles to give rides to any migrants.
...The footage published by O’Keefe on 1 November did not constitute evidence of a member of the O’Rourke campaign team’s using campaign funds to give supplies directly to the migrants, as opposed to donating them to Annunciation House, a registered charity in El Paso.
We asked the O’Rourke campaign whether any of their staff had given supplies purchased with campaign money directly to any migrants. A spokesperson firmly denied this, writing: “Absolutely not. The materials were dropped off to Annunciation House … at the donation site Annunciation House had set up.”
We asked Project Veritas whether it had uncovered any evidence (not shown in their video) of O’Rourke’s campaign staff providing supplies directly to the migrants (as opposed to the charity). A spokesperson for the organization did not directly answer that question but reiterated that they had found evidence of campaign staff discussing an intention to buy supplies for the migrants and to give them rides in a campaign vehicle.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beto-o...-migrants/

So, the film doesn't show actually giving the supplies, money, or whatever, and the O'Rourke campaign has issued a self-serving denial. On that basis you conclude tat there is no problem with the campaign staff cavalierly discussing committing illegal acts and covering them up. Got it.

Have you applied that same standard to members of the other party? Such as perhaps Donald Trump? Link?

No, the campaign said that supplies were donated, but to a charity, which is legal. And the campaign says these donations will be documented with the FEC, as required.

The only denial of action is with regards to the vans they used.

Go ahead and do some investigations into the van use - that's the standard I've applied to Trump. I've got no issue if the FEC wanted to open an investigation into this video, I think there would be grounds. Seems rather small potatoes though, no?

I am glad that the standard you promulgate is that a self-serving explanation will be the one accepted by you with no other proof. Should make a lot of other issues for you on this board very easy to put to rest.

So you’re now ok with accusations without proof?

Provide some proof that the O’Rourke campaign did not fully disclose all donations to the FEC or that they let these staffers use the vans as discussed.

The O’rourke campaign did not deny all the accusations, they recognized the issue and went through the process to correct the problem. Do you suggest they do something differently?

(11-03-2018 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the former, my recollection if that they asked about hypothetical situations or edited out the portion of the conversation where the employees said not to do it. In one case, an ACORN employee played along with O'Keefe and then immediately referred him to the police (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2...030014bd).
To the latter, they spoke about taking campaign funds and donating them to charity (not an illegal act) or using a van to help move legal immigrants around. It was stupid to not just kick it up the ladder immediately to confirm that the campaign infrastructure was OK with this. But yeah, I'm pretty much OK with them discussing assisting poor and needy people. The more I read about the campaign laws governing their actions, the less I care given the magnitude of the dollars spent.

IIRC, ACORN fired someone or ones over the ACORN video. I would presume that they did enough due diligence to conclude that there was a real problem.

So, illegal acts are okay as long as my team is doing them. If you want to go that way, it's your right.

No, that’s not it. Its about response and magnitude of crimes committed. The campaign is following the law now that these allegations have come to light. Why should I be up in arms about that?

I’d be fine if these staffers were fired.

(11-03-2018 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, that’s not it. Its about response and magnitude of crimes committed. The campaign is following the law now that these allegations have come to light. Why should I be up in arms about that?

It's your team. You shouldn't be. That is the rule that you have enunciated.

Quote:I’d be fine if these staffers were fired.

That would seem to be kind of the minimum response.

Harking back to an earlier discussion, there seems to be a lot of smoke here.

and we all know that smoke warrants an investigation by an outside special counsel.

(11-03-2018 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:To tie a bow on another example of shoddy and ethically questionable "journalism," Snopes has a good summary.
Quote:
...Some of the footage posted on 1 November also appeared to show campaign staff discussing the possibility of using campaign vehicles to give rides to migrants, but the video did not show anyone actually doing that or even talking about having taken that action. In response to our questions, the O’Rourke campaign asserted that no staff had used campaign vehicles to give rides to any migrants.
...The footage published by O’Keefe on 1 November did not constitute evidence of a member of the O’Rourke campaign team’s using campaign funds to give supplies directly to the migrants, as opposed to donating them to Annunciation House, a registered charity in El Paso.
We asked the O’Rourke campaign whether any of their staff had given supplies purchased with campaign money directly to any migrants. A spokesperson firmly denied this, writing: “Absolutely not. The materials were dropped off to Annunciation House … at the donation site Annunciation House had set up.”
We asked Project Veritas whether it had uncovered any evidence (not shown in their video) of O’Rourke’s campaign staff providing supplies directly to the migrants (as opposed to the charity). A spokesperson for the organization did not directly answer that question but reiterated that they had found evidence of campaign staff discussing an intention to buy supplies for the migrants and to give them rides in a campaign vehicle.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/beto-o...-migrants/

So, the film doesn't show actually giving the supplies, money, or whatever, and the O'Rourke campaign has issued a self-serving denial. On that basis you conclude tat there is no problem with the campaign staff cavalierly discussing committing illegal acts and covering them up. Got it.

Have you applied that same standard to members of the other party? Such as perhaps Donald Trump? Link?

No, the campaign said that supplies were donated, but to a charity, which is legal. And the campaign says these donations will be documented with the FEC, as required.

The only denial of action is with regards to the vans they used.

Go ahead and do some investigations into the van use - that's the standard I've applied to Trump. I've got no issue if the FEC wanted to open an investigation into this video, I think there would be grounds. Seems rather small potatoes though, no?

I am glad that the standard you promulgate is that a self-serving explanation will be the one accepted by you with no other proof. Should make a lot of other issues for you on this board very easy to put to rest.

So you’re now ok with accusations without proof?

Lad, I am making a comment on your very pliable (to be diplomatic) standard that you give to people making denials.

Funny thing is that the people taped (and I am glad we are actually all watching those first hand tapes instead of knee jerk complaining about the 'distributer') actually confess on tape to a violation of Sec. 1001 -- making a false statement to federal authorities.

Where have I seen that charge pop up before? hmmm....... And yes, its horseshit. But, in other matters it seems to many to be an absolute fitting and just cause for those formal charges. Interesting that.... Since it seems we have a Federal beef, *and* three or four discussing the best manner to do it, and an act in futherance, looks like conspiracy charges are warranted here as well.

(11-03-2018 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, the film doesn't show actually giving the supplies, money, or whatever, and the O'Rourke campaign has issued a self-serving denial. On that basis you conclude tat there is no problem with the campaign staff cavalierly discussing committing illegal acts and covering them up. Got it.

Have you applied that same standard to members of the other party? Such as perhaps Donald Trump? Link?

No, the campaign said that supplies were donated, but to a charity, which is legal. And the campaign says these donations will be documented with the FEC, as required.

The only denial of action is with regards to the vans they used.

Go ahead and do some investigations into the van use - that's the standard I've applied to Trump. I've got no issue if the FEC wanted to open an investigation into this video, I think there would be grounds. Seems rather small potatoes though, no?

I am glad that the standard you promulgate is that a self-serving explanation will be the one accepted by you with no other proof. Should make a lot of other issues for you on this board very easy to put to rest.

So you’re now ok with accusations without proof?

Lad, I am making a comment on your very pliable (to be diplomatic) standard that you give to people making denials.

Funny thing is that the people taped (and I am glad we are actually all watching those first hand tapes instead of knee jerk complaining about the 'distributer') actually confess on tape to a violation of Sec. 1001 -- making a false statement to federal authorities.

Where have I seen that charge pop up before? hmmm....... And yes, its horseshit. But, in other matters it seems to many to be an absolute fitting and just cause for those formal charges. Interesting that.... Since it seems we have a Federal beef, *and* three or four discussing the best manner to do it, and an act in futherance, looks like conspiracy charges are warranted here as well.

Which federal authorities were they making false statements to?

(11-03-2018 02:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, the campaign said that supplies were donated, but to a charity, which is legal. And the campaign says these donations will be documented with the FEC, as required.

The only denial of action is with regards to the vans they used.

Go ahead and do some investigations into the van use - that's the standard I've applied to Trump. I've got no issue if the FEC wanted to open an investigation into this video, I think there would be grounds. Seems rather small potatoes though, no?

I am glad that the standard you promulgate is that a self-serving explanation will be the one accepted by you with no other proof. Should make a lot of other issues for you on this board very easy to put to rest.

So you’re now ok with accusations without proof?

Lad, I am making a comment on your very pliable (to be diplomatic) standard that you give to people making denials.

Funny thing is that the people taped (and I am glad we are actually all watching those first hand tapes instead of knee jerk complaining about the 'distributer') actually confess on tape to a violation of Sec. 1001 -- making a false statement to federal authorities.

Where have I seen that charge pop up before? hmmm....... And yes, its horseshit. But, in other matters it seems to many to be an absolute fitting and just cause for those formal charges. Interesting that.... Since it seems we have a Federal beef, *and* three or four discussing the best manner to do it, and an act in futherance, looks like conspiracy charges are warranted here as well.

Which federal authorities were they making false statements to?

What do you think a campaign expenditure report is? FEC thingy.... You know, the line where he is saying 'falsify the line item'.....

(11-03-2018 03:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 02:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 02:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-03-2018 11:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am glad that the standard you promulgate is that a self-serving explanation will be the one accepted by you with no other proof. Should make a lot of other issues for you on this board very easy to put to rest.

So you’re now ok with accusations without proof?

Lad, I am making a comment on your very pliable (to be diplomatic) standard that you give to people making denials.

Funny thing is that the people taped (and I am glad we are actually all watching those first hand tapes instead of knee jerk complaining about the 'distributer') actually confess on tape to a violation of Sec. 1001 -- making a false statement to federal authorities.

Where have I seen that charge pop up before? hmmm....... And yes, its horseshit. But, in other matters it seems to many to be an absolute fitting and just cause for those formal charges. Interesting that.... Since it seems we have a Federal beef, *and* three or four discussing the best manner to do it, and an act in futherance, looks like conspiracy charges are warranted here as well.

Which federal authorities were they making false statements to?

What do you think a campaign expenditure report is? FEC thingy.... You know, the line where he is saying 'falsify the line item'.....

My question is did they actually lie on it? In the video they’re talking about doing these things over Halloween. That was what, three days ago? I’m not condoning what they were suggesting they do, but is there evidence that they actually falsified the reports? O’Keefe sure as heck doesn’t provide that information.

Again, as I said, go ahead and investigate this. There’s more than enough evidence of a potential election crime to warrant that.

And regardless of what these staffers did, did anyone higher up know about and condone this? As far as we know, as soon as the O’Rourke campaign learned about this, they correctly reported the expenditures to the FEC, and did not try and lie and cover up the issue.

(11-03-2018 03:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My question is did they actually lie on it? In the video they’re talking about doing these things over Halloween. That was what, three days ago? I’m not condoning what they were suggesting they do, but is there evidence that they actually falsified the reports? O’Keefe sure as heck doesn’t provide that information.
Again, as I said, go ahead and investigate this. There’s more than enough evidence of a potential election crime to warrant that.
And regardless of what these staffers did, did anyone higher up know about and condone this? As far as we know, as soon as the O’Rourke campaign learned about this, they correctly reported the expenditures to the FEC, and did not try and lie and cover up the issue.

You're asking questions for which answers are at this point not known. There is no way for a video to answer those questions. But it does raise them. And a self-serving statement by the O'Rourke campaign does not answer them.

(11-03-2018 06:11 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

Good one. LOL..

Read this article/write-up on Vanity Fair yesterday about the Foxconn deal that Walker produced in Wisconsin. It reminded me of the god-awful stadium deals that many municipalities have been duped into doing, but which are slowly starting to happen less and less. Some key takeaways from the article that I found rather surprising:

Quote: The deal will cost taxpayers more than $4.5 billion in subsidies, but because manufacturing companies in Wisconsin are already exempt from paying taxes, “Foxconn, which generated a hundred and fifty-eight billion dollars in revenue last year, will receive much of this subsidy in direct cash payments from taxpayers”—the largest subsidy given to a foreign corporation in U.S. history...

If Wisconsinites ever see a return on their investment, it’ll be in 2042 at the earliest, according to analysis from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau...

the company recently changed the type of factory it plans to build, downsizing to a highly automated plant that will only require three thousand employees, ninety per cent of them “knowledge workers,” such as engineers, programmers, and designers. Almost all of the assembly work will be done by robots. Terry Gou, Foxconn’s chairman, has said he plans to replace eighty percent of Foxconn’s global workforce with “Foxbots” in the next five to ten years. The company still says it will hire thirteen thousand employees in Wisconsin, but it has fallen short of similar promises in Brazil, India, and Pennsylvania, among other places. Foxconn has already replaced sixty thousand workers who were earning roughly $2.50 an hour in China.

I think the first bullet, which is that the deal Foxconn struck with Walker will literally result in tax dollars being directly transferred to Foxconn (as opposed to them just being less burdened via taxes), is the most glaring issue with this deal.

I can't figure out if there is any upside to racing to the bottom to lure these corporations into a market when the benefits are not clear cut and often seem to be non-existent.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/...xconn-scam

Adios, Jeff Sessions

Lock her up?

(11-20-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Lock her up?

That would involve a double standard, wouldn't it?

(11-20-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Lock her up?

That would involve a double standard, wouldn't it?

Only if the left actually cares about (which so far as I can tell, they don't).

I imagine the right, though, is going to be similarly up in arms about a member of the Trump admin using a personal email to send government emails.