Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

I really should read my own blog.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Everybody saw this coming.

In my day, never was longer.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

You are here: Home / Bad luck ain’t got me so far

Bad luck ain’t got me so far

by | 163 Comments

This post is in: ,

I am a superstitious man, as Don Corleone once said, so normally I would never say that my candidate had a race sewn up, because that might jinx my candidates. However, one of my superstitions is that Mark Halperin saying that something will happen makes that something less likely to happen. So this stupid Halperin shit about how Putin and Julian Assange may be about to swing the election probably means that the race really and truly is over

Let’s take the House and Senate too.

Goal Thermometer

Reader Interactions

163Comments

  1. 1.

    dmsilev

    So, Trump’s campaign manager is more important than either candidate? Even in the twisted reality of HalperinWorld, how is that supposed to make sense?

  3. 3.

    Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck

    This seems correct to me. At this point, the person with the greatest chance to change the course of the race is Chris Wallace, with his determination to make Trump the winner of the third debate. I don’t think his odds are actually very good, but he has the best shot of anyone. Putin and Assange are next, because hey, they might could pull SOMETHING out of their asses. The Clintons, Trump, and Obama are going to do what they do and not change. Pence is a joke. Kellyanne, I don’t know.

  4. 4.

    Mary G

    How’s Chris Wallace going to help Trump or Clinton? He’s already said he won’t be fact-checking.

  8. 8.

    dmsilev

    Wait, he forgot Obama’s half-brother, who apparently is going to be Trump’s secret-weapon guest at the debate tomorrow. Why Obama’s half-brother has anything to do with Hillary Clinton is left as an exercise for Trump’s psychoanalyst.

  9. 9.

    Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck

    @Mary G:
    By using his authority as moderator to focus the debate on FOX-slanted issues, letting Trump talk freely, and not only trying to cut off Hillary as much as possible, but scold her in the process – for, say, not explaining why entitlements are the worst thing ever and must be cut. He thinks Trump is a debate god and hates Hillary, so whatever he can figure out to do, he will.

  10. 10.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    I am a superstitious man, as Don Corleone once said

    I had no idea you guys even knew each other. Who played you in the movie again?

  13. 13.

    Mnemosyne

    Can someone with a stronger stomach than mine tell me what’s in the latest fake O’Keefe videos? I want to be able to properly mock my gullible cousin-in-law on Facebook.

  15. 15.

    jheartney

    Later debates are less important than earlier debates. This election cycle has been the most stable one in the modern era. The number of undecideds is at an historic low. Recent massive revelations about Trump’s past as a sexual predator haven’t budged the numbers. Nobody but the Breitbart-infected cares about emails.

    So naturally Halperin is pumping up THA HORZRACE like there’s no tomorrow. If ever you needed an excuse to not think about the man again, this is it.

  18. 18.

    dmsilev

    @Mnemosyne: Random people saying things that, when deceptively edited and taken massively out of context, sound bad. Same old same old, in other words.

  19. 19.

    Splitting Image

    You’re all being too hard on Halperin. Bill Kristol is the one you should be worrying about. He has said that Trump is unfit for office, and since he is always wrong about everything, might be close to causing the end of the world.

    Halperin is always wrong too, so its actually reassuring to see him saying the same wrong things he always does.

  20. 20.

    hovercraft

    @Pest Bog Mummy, Frakensteinbeck:
    I saw somewhere that something like 60 % of the voters say the debate will not change who they vote for, and I expect that the ratings will be lower than the first two. Chris Wallace was actually quite good in the GOP primaries, and he has a reputation to protect, so while I expect the questions to be FOXcentric, he will be as fair as he can be.

  23. 23.

    Mnemosyne

    @dmsilev:

    Well, that can’t be right, because he says it’s a GAMECHANGER that will CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION that THE MSM IS AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT.

    Even his Facebook friends seem to be politely ignoring him.

  24. 24.

    hovercraft

    @WaterGirl:
    She came out today, I guess she was convinced by her paymasters that it was in her best interest to get back out there and lie her ass off. Unfortunately for her the days of the media allowing her to come on and turn every question into an attack on Clinton are over. She gets interrupted and hosts point out that the things she wants to talk about will be asked of Clinton surrogates, and that she is there to talk about her candidate. SAD!

  25. 25.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    @Splitting Image: Having Kristol saying things that actually resemble what seems to be true is definitely akin to crossing the streams.

    Look it’s simple, all we need to do is not think about a giant, pasty, bloated, marshmallowy-looking….. uh oh…

  26. 26.

    PhoenixRising

    Dig in your pockets y’all. John McCain needs to go to one of his homes, perhaps the one in Scottsdale, and sulk for the remainder of his natural life while Ann Kirkpatrick redecorates that office.

    I’m lucky enough to be able to take a week off work to push/pull/drag less likely voters, and I’m going to stay with my least favorite cousin in Maricopa County to do it. Tossing a little $$ in the hat is really pretty easy!

  27. 27.

    hovercraft

    @dmsilev:
    I think it’s revenge aimed at Obama, for attacking Trump for no reason. He’s been telling Obama to get off the campaign trail and get back to work, since Obama didn’t listen this will show him! Sick burn!

  28. 28.

    tsquared2001

    If he is shot in the head by a police officer or be found hung in a jail cell……

    What makes that scene is when Brando says: if he should be struck by a bolt of lightening, then I’m gonna blame some of the people in this room.

    Let us also not forget, that RIGHT after that scene, Vito talks to Tom about how Tataliaga is a pimp.

    Doug! gets me

  31. 31.

    maeve

    My “fear” about the election is the guy sitting with his friend in their garage/rec room (whom I canvassed in 2008) who laughed at me (semi kindly) about being involved in politics – how many Trump voters who never voted before are voting- counter-balanced by Latinos who are now voting (see Propane Jane)

    Don’t look at the polls (based on likely voter models – they are all out the window ) – just GOTV

  32. 32.

    WaterGirl

    @PhoenixRising:

    Tossing a little $$ in the hat is really pretty easy!

    Definitely easier than staying with your least favorite cousin! (who hopefully does not read this blog)

  33. 33.

    NotMax

    Maybe Wallace will give up and go full Barbara Walters.

    “What kind of tree would you choose to be?”

    “If you could design the perfect meal which foods would you include, and why?”

    “What’s your spirit animal?”

    “This one is a toughie, so be prepared. Favorite season of the year?”

  34. 34.

    catclub

    @jheartney:

    This election cycle has been the most stable one in the modern era. The number of undecideds is at an historic low.

    Josh Marshall had a chart of 2012 polling and 2016 polling. Hillary is beating the margins that Obama had by 4-5%. Last day polling had Obama by about 1-2% and he won by 4%. If Clinton simply equals her polling she will beat that.

  36. 36.

    amk

    hillz should simply knee the carnival barker racist xenophobe pos in his nutz by welcoming the muslim and the immigrant half-brother to the debate.

  37. 37.

    Peale

    @Mnemosyne: From what I can tell, the guy who ran Democratic “ditty tricks” is bragging about all of his dirty tricks. The implication is that Donald’s rally’s have been poisoned by the Democrats so all those haters you see are really plants.

  38. 38.

    catclub

    @maeve:

    My “fear” about the election is the guy sitting with his friend in their garage/rec room (whom I canvassed in 2008) who laughed at me (semi kindly) about being involved in politics – how many Trump voters who never voted before are voting-

    I suspect they forgot to register to vote, but will be pissed when told they cannot vote without registering.

  39. 39.

    Dog Dawg Damn

    I’m guessing the final debate has much lower viewership numbers than the previous two.

    This has become a circus, and most people want it over with by now. I wish I didn’t have to watch it, but the husband is all about it, so we will. I can’t stand Chris Wallace and his smug, snide sneering smirk. My guess is he will take it hard to Hillary, and she’ll hold up well.

  41. 41.

    hovercraft

    @Mnemosyne:
    From Snopes

    In October 2016, Project Veritas released a series of videos that they alleged demonstrated misconduct, impropriety, and vote “rigging” on the part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff or other Democrats.

    Project Veritas’ YouTube channel displayed four “undercover” videos released in October 2016.

    Project Veritas’ October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage
    absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: 18 October 2016

    I did not watch the videos.

  44. 44.

    tsquared2001

    @maeve: Donny voters go to rallies and nothing else. Registering to vote? Knowing the deadlines to register? Even their own candidate fucked up the election date.
    Of course, there will be whining and bitching but what else is new?

  45. 45.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Mnemosyne: Apparently a contractor working for the Clinton campaign told O’Keefe he hired people to go to Trump events and disrupt them. There’s no actual evidence that the contractor did what he said. My understanding is the Clinton campaign had fired him. That’s pretty much it.

  46. 46.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    I made the mistake of seeing Joe in the morning talking to Halperin this morning and they agreed that Hillary should be up by 30 points given how badly Trump had imploded, and that media coverage had been completely biased against Donald Trump which is why he’s doing so badly.

    They’ve really got this little logic machine wired up so no matter what you put into it it’s the same result: Clinton is up by almost ten points? She screwed up. Trump has imploded and is down ten points? Not his fault. The Earth is about to be hit by a giant comet? Hillary screwed up, not Trump’s fault.

  49. 49.

    Lizzy L

    @catclub: At both previous debates the pundits tried to say that Trump had won, which was not at all what the actual voter responses said. (Except for Frank Luntz’s focus group. Forget him.) The pundits looked biased and stupid. If Wallace tries to make Trump look good or goes after Clinton too hard, it will show and the voters won’t like it, and they’ll react loudly and publicly.

    I too wish this were over.

  50. 50.

    Peale

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Yep. Joe’s bogus populism is a site to behold. “Coastal Elites Don’t Understand their Pain!”. Jesus. If only there was a show to discuss those issues seriously. If only someone could do something about that. Maybe have serious discussions about trade policy or industrial policy or wage stagnation or access to education and what could be done about it besides “punish Washington.” If only someone could do that?

    Joe doesn’t want to give up his handmade custom shoes, however. So…

  52. 52.

    mainmata

    The cable/TV networks in particular long ago decided that this was going to be a bothsides are awful Sh*tshow long ago. Lists like this are just MSM blathering.

  54. 54.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    @NotMax: They weren’t trying to make it a horse race. They just want to blame the Democrat, and particularly if it’s Hillary Clinton. She could win in the biggest landslide in history and I swear to God Joe will be saying she totally blew it and should have won by more.

    I just loved the dissonance in this one and the fact that they couldn’t see it even after saying it. He’s such a clown why is she only nine points ahead of him, and he’s only behind as much as he is because it’s the media’s fault.

  55. 55.

    weaselone

    @Peale:
    Joe could always invite some of these poor, unfortunate souls in pain and need onto his show to discuss the issues with him.

  57. 57.

    hovercraft

    @Mnemosyne:

    From Snopes
    Project Veritas October 2016 election-related sting videos reveal titbits of selectively (and no doubt deceptively edited) footage absent any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking an assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

    Lets see if this disappears into the ether too.

  58. 58.

    Peale

    @weaselone: LOL. Tweety was on the same kick. Where are the issues? He thundered from a show with his name on it that is on TV 5 days a week during prime time. Like the only thing that can be done and has ever been done is invite six of the most shouty people on at once and give each 15 seconds to respond.

  59. 59.

    hovercraft

    @Mnemosyne:
    I tried three times to link to snopes, where they say they can’t evaluate the videos because they suspect his usual tactics, so they would need the entire unedited footage.
    Lets see if this disappears too. Fingers crossed.

  61. 61.

    different-church-lady

    Most key ppl in race now my next week of yapping inanely on television in order

    Fixed that for him.

  62. 62.

    Adam L Silverman

    @srv:

    Conservatives have vastly misunderestimated the machinations of the left misunderstood the meaning of the 1st Amendment.

    Fixed it for you.

  64. 64.

    Adam L Silverman

    @ding7777: I think that’s him. As usual there’s no way of knowing how the footage was edited or even if it was fabricated. I’ve seen almost no mainstream news coverage of it – other than an offhand remark or two – because everyone seems to have finally wised up to the fact that whatever O’Keefe is pushing is highly dubious and likely to bite whoever runs with it on the ass.

  66. 66.

    mike in dc

    Missing from Halperin’s list:
    1. Random video editor from The Apprentice in possession of racist and misogynist outtakes
    2. Next group of Trump sexual assault accusers
    3. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell’s potential unendorsements following 1 and 2

  67. 67.

    Adam L Silverman

    @hovercraft: Here’s the Snopes’ link:
    http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/

    Project Veritas’ Election 2016 ‘Rigging’ Videos
    James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released four 2016 election-related videos supposedly depicting rampant election fraud and misconduct on the part of Democrats.
    Kim LaCapria
    Kim LaCapria
    Oct 18, 2016

    In October 2016, Project Veritas released a series of videos that they alleged demonstrated misconduct, impropriety, and vote “rigging” on the part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff or other Democrats.

    Project Veritas’ YouTube channel displayed four “undercover” videos released in October 2016. The first video involved a surreptitiously recorded conversation between a covert operative for Project Veritas and Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin at a December 2015 Christmas party. In the clip, Schulkin surmised voter ID would prevent voter fraud and discussed the possibility of “bussing” voters to polling places:

    The second video purportedly evidenced a culture of ambient misogyny at a Clinton field office, framed as a response to concurrent controversy over lewd remarks by Donald Trump captured on tape in 2005:

    The third video involved a hidden recording of Democratic candidate Russ Feingold opining that Hillary Clinton “might issue an executive order” pertaining to guns:

    The fourth and most controversial video purportedly depicted evidence that the Clinton campaign’s field offices were tampering with Republican voter registrations and conspiring to incite violence at Trump rallies:

    The videos are, as is typical of O’Keefe’s, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions.

    The framing and style of videos created by James O’Keefe is well known due to his 2009 “sting” in which he and accomplice Hannah Giles visited ACORN offices and pretended to be seeking advice on how to run an illegal business that included the use of underage girls in the sex trade. The resulting videos — which were edited to create the impression that O’Keefe and Giles had spoken to ACORN representatives while dressed as a pimp and prostitute — dealt that organization a mortal blow before reports publicizing the deception in O’Keefe’s videos came to light:

    How quickly things seem to fall apart when James O’Keefe is the person who put them together.

    O’Keefe’s incriminating ACORN video was shown to have been heavily edited — neither he nor Hannah Giles were actually in pimp and prostitute get-up when they spoke to ACORN employees, for example — and no criminal prosecutions of ACORN followed. While not letting ACORN off the hook for showing “terrible judgment” in the video, California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”

    Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version … NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. Folkenflik reviewed the two tapes himself, along with some NPR colleagues and outsiders like The Blaze’s editor-in-chief Scott Baker and Poynter’s Al Tompkins. They home in on many of the same problems The Blaze pointed out. And they basically come to the same conclusion: the tape is still a problem, but the impression it leaves is different.

    “I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.”

    Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O’Keefe’s methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review:

    From where might we have learned such a lesson? From video scandals past. Think ACORN and think Shirley Sherrod: job- and organization-crippling scandals in which the media blindly aided and abetted. Note too that O’Keefe is a political point-scorer, and here he is scoring from a soft-target.

    We knew all of this, and yet few of us slowed down. Including the NPR brass.

    It is telling that The Blaze was the first to point out O’Keefe’s context-stripping editing and that its report came out two days after O’Keefe’s video release. (And, yes, we at CJR should have been doing just as The Blaze did, searching for the discrepancies they found.) It’s telling because, as The Blaze showed, it takes time to vet a source.

    We can only hope that, next time, the order in which this scandal and others like it have unfolded — headlines and drama first; reporting and vetting later — is reversed. Given the pattern that just repeated itself, we’re not optimistic.

    The Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) organization also regularly covered O’Keefe’s efforts in 2011 and 2012, lamenting how often the details of the purported stings are misreported before being thoroughly investigated:

    USA Today has a long piece by Martha Moore about video hoax artist James O’Keefe’s NPR project. The article does a pretty good job of running down the deceptions in O’Keefe’s video. That’s good. This, however, is not:

    … The sting’s impact was magnified by the quick dissemination-without-scrutiny that is a hallmark of Internet-driven media.

    O’Keefe’s video has nothing to do with muckraking. And please don’t blame the Internet for the fact that journalists apparently can’t be bothered to care whether a source is reliable.

    From NBC Nightly News, courtesy of reporter Lisa Myers:

    We last saw O’Keefe wearing a fur coat and playing a pimp when he managed to take down the liberal group ACORN.

    No we didn’t … As should be well-known by now, O’Keefe used footage of himself wearing a “pimp” costume in his ACORN videos — but didn’t wear the ridiculous costume during his “undercover stings.” Media accounts acted as though he did, though — it took a lot of effort to get the New York Times to finally admit its errors on this count.

    If reporters don’t know these facts, they’re bound to get fooled by O’Keefe again.

    After his fraudulent ACORN videos, the lesson media should have learned about right-wing “citizen journalist” James O’Keefe is not to trust him. But they didn’t, so here we are with his NPR stunt, which allegedly shows NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller saying mean things about the Tea Party in a meeting with phony Muslim Brotherhood-connected donors.

    But it appears that, once again, O’Keefe’s videos are not be what they seem. The first serious questions about them were raised on (I swear!) The Blaze, a Glenn Beck-affiliated website. Over there, Scott Baker pointed to a few problems. In one part of the video, NPR‘s Schiller seems to laugh about the phony Muslim group’s position on Sharia law. Baker says it’s out of context.

    NPR has done at least two reports on the video. It’s not quite a Shirley Sherrod moment — where the right-wing video was edited to totally turn her message around — but it’s clear that things aren’t exactly what they first seemed. O’Keefe’s history should give media outlets serious reservations about taking him at face value on anything … which goes to show you that the argument that the media is tilted to the left remains totally unconvincing.

    As Exhibit A, look at James O’Keefe, who famously and proudly passed off his partner as a prostitute while secretly videotaping ACORN staffers. Who in the debate over O’Keefe’s work took the position that because the colleague was not actually a prostitute, the entire project was unethical and therefore all of his videotapes should be ignored? The actual objection to O’Keefe’s work was that he deceived the public — misleadingly editing his footage to create false impressions, including the popular delusion that O’Keefe had gone into ACORN offices wearing an outlandish Superfly costume. Nevertheless, he got overwhelmingly positive coverage from right-wing and centrist news outlets alike, with the result that his mendacious reporting had the successful result of helping to bring ACORN down.

    In a 2011 op-ed, a Washington Post writer laid out the reasons why videos released by Project Veritas should initially sound numerous ethical alarms:

    It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece … In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie.

    Interest in the four current Project Veritas videos has run high on social media. Politico addressed them from the perspective of legality, such as whether Project Veritas violated the law in Florida by ostensibly not adhering to the state’s wiretapping laws. The article also included a statement from Florida State Democratic Party spokesman Max Steele regarding the allegations about voter registrations:

    According to Max Steele, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party, Mao or anyone else would lose their jobs for destroying voter-registration forms.

    “Sexual assault and harassment, and destruction of voter registration forms, are serious offenses,” Steele said in a written statement. “There is no question that a staff member who engaged in this kind of behavior would be immediately terminated, and we are investigating the claims. Remarks like these do not represent the Florida Democratic Party and are completely inappropriate.”

    The video neither shows nor alleges that anyone affiliated with Clinton’s campaign actually destroyed any forms. Florida Democrats are surpassing Republicans in signing up voters. The state party has submitted 503,000 voter registration forms for this election; the state Republican Party only 60,000. The Florida Democratic Party said it trains volunteers on proper handling of the registration forms and tracks the documents to make sure none is destroyed in violation of state law.

    Under state law, a “person may not knowingly destroy, mutilate, or deface a voter registration form or election ballot or obstruct or delay the delivery of a voter registration form or election ballot.” The third-degree felony carries a maximum five-year-prison term and $5,000 fine.

    However, the video itself could constitute a third-degree felony on the part of Project Veritas because of Florida’s law that requires consent before someone is recorded. A person must give explicit consent or give “implied consent” by continuing to talk after being told he or she is being recorded.

    As the piece noted, the “rigging” clip and claims of voter registration form destruction did not stem from activity surreptitiously recorded by Project Veritas. Instead, the viral video simply depicts an operative of the organization attempting to bait campaign workers into “admitting” they would tolerate such behavior. And as with the video involving Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin, what Project Veritas’ targets appeared to be doing was going along with leading questions rather than disputing them.

    Schulkin himself provided comment to that effect, telling the New York Post that he had played along with a young woman he described as a “nuisance”:

    The videographer asked point-blank, “You think they should have voter ID in New York?”

    Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”

    Schulkin defended his videotaped remarks, with slight revisions.

    “I should have said ‘potential fraud’ instead of ‘fraud,’” he said.

    But he reiterated his support for a voter ID requirement.

    He recalled a woman asking him a lot of questions the night he was recorded.

    “She was like a nuisance. I was just trying to placate her,” he said.

    The October 2016 releases weren’t Project Veritas’ first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O’Keefe infamously bungled an attempted “investigation” by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). A May 2016 New Yorker article about that aborted sting examined the forces behind Project Veritas and the diminishing impact of deceptive videos:

    Many O’Keefe operations, however, have fallen flat, including his repeated efforts to prove that voter-identity fraud is pervasive. “It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. A sting aimed at Hillary Clinton was considered especially feeble. Veritas operatives persuaded a staffer at a rally to accept a Canadian citizen’s money in exchange for a Hillary T-shirt — a petty violation of the ban on foreign political contributions. Brian Fallon, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, says, “Project Veritas has been repeatedly caught trying to commit fraud, falsify identities, and break campaign-finance law. It is not surprising, given that their founder has already been convicted for efforts like this.”

    It may be that the shock value of such exposés is diminishing. A recent series of sting videos against Planned Parenthood, created by a group called the Center for Medical Progress, involved deceptions so devious — including an attempt by undercover operatives to buy fetal tissue — that the campaign backfired. Pro-choice activists united in anger at the sting’s perpetrators, and a Texas grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing and indicted the C.M.P.

    Project Veritas’ October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage
    absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

    ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: 18 October 2016

    SOURCES:
    Campanile, Carl. “Elections Official Caught on Video Blasting de Blasio’s ID Program.”
    New York Post. 11 October 2016.

    Hammer, David. “ACORN ‘Gotcha’ Man Arrested in Attempt to Tamper With Mary Landrieu’s Office Phones.”
    The Times-Picayune. 26 January 2010.

    Hart, Peter. “Blaming the Internet for Reporters’ Gullibility.”
    FAIR. 17 March 2011.

    Hart, Peter. “NBC Still Doesn’t Know About O’Keefe’s ACORN Hoax.”
    FAIR. 15 March 2011.

    Hart, Peter. “NPR Unstung? Once Again, O’Keefe Shows He Shouldn’t Be Trusted.”
    FAIR. 14 March 2011.

    Gerson, Michael. “The NPR Video and Political Dirty Tricks.”
    The Washington Post. 17 March 2011.

    Mayer, Jane. “Sting of Myself.”
    The New Yorker. 30 May 2016.

    Meares, Joel. “O’Keefe Teaches Media a Lesson (Again).”
    Columbia Journalism Review. 15 March 2011.

    Naureckas, Jim. “Media’s Weird Ethics: Pretending to Be Someone Else Is Worse Than Facilitating Global Catastrophe.”
    FAIR. 22 February 2012.

  68. 68.

    Sm*t Cl*de

    Obama’s half-brother, who apparently is going to be Trump’s secret-weapon guest at the debate tomorrow

    Once again, Trump smuggles furriners into the country rather than look for an American to do the work,* but this time it’s a MUSLIN FURRINER.

    * Much like his marriages.

  69. 69.

    hovercraft

    @Bill E Pilgrim:
    Funny how the last few years we’ve been told that the country is extremely polarized, Obama’s approval rating among republicans was 41 % from the beginning of his presidency. But somehow they expect this evil woman who has been demonized on FOX and talk radio for the last 20 something years to have crossover appeal? The fact that she’s getting any republicans, and is only trailing among independents by single digits is a miracle. Remember Obama lost them to RMoney, they lean GOP.

  71. 71.

    SiubhanDuinne, liberal mob enforcer bitch

    @Adam L Silverman:

    I’m sure that’s going to be well worth studying, and I will, but holy fuck, that is the very epitome of a tl;dr post comment. My thumb just about fell off from scrolling down to the end.

  72. 72.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    @mike in dc: They should put those on a rolling trend line thing, live. Okay, Trump got applause, Ryan has endorsed again. No wait, after that burn from Clinton, he’s un-endorsed. And so has Thune! Wait, good response from Trump….. Thune is re-endorsing!

  73. 73.

    Applejinx

    @Mnemosyne: I can’t because a dear, close friend I value a lot was watching that and going “those MOTHERFUCKERS’. I had to ask, and she was like ‘it will make your head explode, you supported Bernie and well…”

    I saw it was THAT guy, and I didn’t even watch. So I can’t help. I hate Mister Acorn, that freakshow. He is now responsible for a nasty silent no-go zone between me and a good friend. She is up in flyover country and a huge fan of Trey Gowdy and bought it hook line and sinker and I can’t change that by flipping out, though I did say I didn’t think O’Keefe was as honest as Gowdy, and I posted a picture of him crossing the Rio Grande in a Saddam Hussein mask.

    This fucking election.

    As for the guy’s claims, it’s just too difficult to explain to my very decent friend (who runs for and holds political office! And is generally just as distrustful of Republicans as Democrats!) that I figure Clinton’s political savvy and expert badass team are part of WHY I support her. Bernie had to be able to stand up against that, and he had a fair chance and a decent amount of money from me personally, and he wasn’t able to defeat Hillary and has turned to supporting her, rightly so.

    Come at the queen, you best not miss.

    It is my assumption that she does NOT see benefit in raping and pillaging America, and a lot of her remarks (and the Dem platform) seem reassuring, and it’s really not the Nineties anymore. But I can’t extend faith on behalf of others, or tell them not to listen to O’Keefe: if they’ll eat that, but choke on Hillary playing hardball fucking politics, I don’t know what to tell them.

    Continue to play hardball, Hillary. The latest meme going around is how Paul Ryan warns that Bernie will head the budget committee.

    That… will do nicely. I feel if he’s there, it will be encouragement for Hillary to take useful government action to help Americans. And the more frightened the zombie-eyed granny starver is, the more pleased I shall be. EARN that fear, you fuckers. Actually take actions that are the wingnuts’ worst nightmares, and I will back you 100%.

  74. 74.

    Peale

    @hovercraft: yep. It’s almost like they haven’t heard of loyal republican voters before. Or anything that any republican candidate running for a house seat has campaigned on. Like they must only know serious republicans who would never go on a right wing talk radio show to get votes from Pam Gellar.

  75. 75.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    @srv: He does realize that Twitter is a private company and can censor anyone, anyway they please. Why to you hate free enterprise srv?

  76. 76.

    Old Dan and Little Anne

    I heard Hannity talking about this video proving Hillary sent people to disrupt drumph rallies. So it must be true.
    eta: they also used rental cars instead of bussing people in to vote illegally. Because it’s less obvious of course.

  77. 77.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Sm*t Cl*de: Obama’s half brother is an open supporter of Hamas. So this should be interesting:
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/46493_So_Donald_Trump_Just_Invited_a_Hamas_Supporter_to_the_Debate_Tomorrow_Night

    And the mother of one of the guys killed at Benghazi who’s grief has made her completely irrational. I think the Trump folks are trying to force a confrontation between her and Secretary Clinton liked they tried to do with President Clinton and Jones, Broaddrick, Wiley, and Shelton at the 2nd debate.

  79. 79.

    Calouste

    Assange could influence the race when Ecuador gives him his internet access back, which most likely is going to be on the morning of Wednesday November 9th.

  81. 81.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    What Donald Trump and whoever is running his campaign sometimes don’t seem to grasp is that things only stick when they reinforce what people already thought. “Hillary Clinton, dirty campaign trickster sending thugs to rallies” is just not going to ring true to anyone. “Donald Trump, who brags about committing sexual assault, apparently committed sexual assault” was another story entirely.

  85. 85.

    Adam L Silverman

    @efgoldman: There were a couple of lawsuits that got settled with money from his backers over the ACORN thing – one of the guys who was fired. He got a fortunate sentencing in his trial for criminal trespass and interference with communications at SEN Landriue’s office. I think some of it is that other than the ACORN videos, his stuff hasn’t really achieved anything. So no one has much reason to sue. He basically makes himself look stupid every time he does one of these. And, as was the case with his buddy Daleidan, he appears to have broken FL law about taping people without their consent. In Daleidan’s case this got him charged with a couple of felonies and he’s being sued for everything anyone named Daleidan ever owned in CA. And I’m pretty sure that the NAF will use anything discovered in their civil suit in CA to push for criminal prosecution if they can.

  88. 88.

    Applejinx

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Are you joking? Yes it will, but it does not necessarily mean ‘Hillary Clinton, will be a disaster’.

    People DO think she is that ruthless. Thing is, she is up against Cheeto Hitler, and her platform this time is pretty damn awesome. I don’t give a fuck if she’s that ruthless if she’s trying to do things I consider desperately need doing. Winning is one of those things.

    Bernie is supporting her, after ‘dirty tricks’ etc. We can get what we need from her. This is not the time to throw a hissy fit about who gets to wear the freaking crown: we are all in this together. Let her lead. She’s god-damned determined to, and I like seeing that when the alternative is Trump.

  89. 89.

    Adam L Silverman

    @hovercraft: Yep, you’ve got a lot of stuff that went right into the trash folder. I do not know why this seems to just randomly happen.

  90. 90.

    hovercraft

    @Adam L Silverman:
    I thought Trump watched the un- funny SNL. she will not take the bait, and between the debate commission and the secret service she will be kept far away from Hillary. Unless she is planning to begin screaming at Hillary when the inevitable Benghazi question comes up, I don’t see how that will have an impact.

  91. 91.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    @Applejinx: Well I can’t say I followed most of that but am I joking? Nope.

    She’s seen as lots of things, agreed, but someone egging on thugs to disrupt rallies, that’s not one of them. Trump maybe, not her.

  92. 92.

    Applejinx

    @Omnes Omnibus: That’s right. My assumption. I think it’s absurd to assume she’s some kind of neoliberal loon trying to bring back the 90s and turn the country over to oligarchs and corporations (more than it is).

    There are far too many people close to me, who are completely down with thinking she is all that. They are wrong, and you folks are fucking opium eaters if you think the general take on Hils is that she’s Liberal Jesus. You are crazy. Nobody buys that, but they are all very determined to support her anyway, as am I.

    You don’t have to be nice to be effective. You don’t even have to be nice to be great. Hillary is a lot more nice than she’s painted. I advise you settle for that because jesus fucking christ, you people. You have no idea of the world you live in.

  95. 95.

    Adam L Silverman

    @hovercraft: I agree that Clinton won’t take the bait. But she’s going to be placed in the front row, so I think they’re hoping she’ll lose it and go after Clinton when its over and the candidates go down to mingle. I feel bad for her – she’s suffered a great loss. But at this point she’s just being used for other people’s advantage. I’d also love someone in the news media to point out that when Cindy Sheehan made the same statements about President Bush (43) everyone shrugged her off as some loon.

  97. 97.

    Applejinx

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Between the frothing lefties and the wingnuts (and I’ve got both sorts in my life because I have a social circle, drug/alcohol recovery, that has no relation to politics) people believe far worse than that of Hillary, and they are wrong.

    Don’t paint her as an honest feckless boob. I’ve never doubted her ruthlessness, only her intentions. I’m pretty confident of her intentions though we’re going to have to give her not only the Presidency, but also the Senate and the House. Then we’ll see, for sure.

    Some of the things she should do, SHOULD make wingnuts absolutely hysterical. The wingnuts are wrong and we can’t coexist with them. They have to lose, policy-wise, and also be prevented from too much domestic terrorist action. They won’t like that.

    Hillary can handle it, and that fact confirms SOME of their ranting about her. They can call that abuse of power and I’m sure they will. It might BE abuse of power in some ways. I don’t care. The wingnuts and Trump-nuts have gone beyond what decent behavior can cope with.

  98. 98.

    Adam L Silverman

    @hovercraft: Its not you or what you did. There’s something wrong somewhere in WP’s code that just randomly seems to select stuff for the trash folder. And it’ll do it for several posts of the same person and then stop. I’ll email Alain about it again, but if I remember correctly, its something he has to query WP about because there’s nothing for him to fix.

  99. 99.

    hovercraft

    Casey Hunt is saying that she feels that there is almost an air of overconfidence in the Clinton bubble, says flying in felt like flying in on Airforce One in waiting. But yesterday I’m pretty sure that Casey or one of the others was telling me that there was a cloud over Brooklyn, because of all the personal attacks, and the scuzzyness of the campaign. They said that Hillary and Bill were very upset. So which is it are they depressed or overconfident. Or is it like Obama being a weak bullying tyrant dictator.

  100. 100.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Applejinx: You are missing my point. You still seem to see her as some kind of vicious, Machiavellian asshole. You really seem to miss the years of working for children, the years of working for women’s rights, the years of working for minority rights. You also seem to be completely unaware of the absolute loyalty she inspires in people who have worked with her.

  101. 101.

    hovercraft

    @Adam L Silverman:
    It hadn’t picked on me for a while, but it got me twice today. You might mention that it apparently identified my user name, tonight I’m home and this afternoon I was on a PC at work.

  103. 103.

    Applejinx

    @Omnes Omnibus: Actually, that’s what drew me back from BernieBusting and made me increasingly determined to back her. But just as Obama’s capable of supporting a slave-holding country because of their strategic importance and position between us and China, Clinton is capable of being meaner than you think. Most of the ‘scandals’ I’ve seen can be explained as the basic nastiness of politics, combined with the fact that Clintons WILL NOT turn against their friends and loyalists. If you get a sense of that, then it explains the absolute loyalty part. You’d have to be a jerk to turn against her or Bill if you’ve understood that they would take a bullet for you, that they will not betray you.

    This is also why the ‘superpredators brought to heel’ thing was a bullshit wedge argument: black communities WANTED an end to their violence. At the time, the Clintons weren’t pursuing economic directions that would help black communities (they were misled, as was most of the world then). But they listened, and they backed policy that would address that violence.

    I can’t picture Jill Stein being that kind of tough (or Donald Trump listening).

    I don’t think you can follow only your own pure-hearted moral compass AND be able to listen to allies that effectively. What you call ‘vicious machiavellian asshole’ I call ‘damn that’s some hardball politics’. But you can’t be horrified and pearl-clutchy when wingnuts flip out and think Hillary will orchestrate a crapload of ruthless stuff that wrecks all their dreams. Their dreams SUCK. I WANT them wrecked. Accept that Hillary is ‘vicious’ enough to do that. She had better be.

  104. 104.

    danielx

    Conservatives have vastly misunderestimated the machinations of the left.

    The gall of those media bastards, to accurately report Donald Trump’s words and actions and even investigate the vile untruths spouted by his enemies! Why, the conspiracy even extends to microphones!

    It seem to me that the treatment of the orange shitgibbon by the media is pretty much what is to be expected, given how much dirt is a matter of public record and knowledge already. I can sort of understand why Trump didn’t want his campaign staff to do opposition research on him; I’d wager that after two weeks of investigation a fairish number of them would have quit. Either out of disgust or a sense that their candidate was about as attractive as gangrene….

  105. 105.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @PatrickG: Inspiring loyalty is good politics. Nicolo or not. Applejinx is a former Bernie person who seems to have a really weird vision of HRC. AJ seems to see her as an amoral, vicious pol who just has latched onto a certain agenda because it resonates. AJ is a loon.

  107. 107.

    SFAW

    @NotMax:

    Maybe Wallace will give up and go full Barbara Walters.

    Right church, wrong pew:

    Q1) Chris Wallace: Mr. Trump, why does Hillary suck so much?
    Q2) Miss Clinton, why are you such a bitch?
    Q3) My Lord Trump, would Hitlary be the worst President ever?
    Q4) Bitch Queen, why would you be the worst President ever?
    Q5) Donald, my idol, if you win, would you even bother to put Hitlary on trial, or would you just have a summary execution for her crimes?
    Q6) Hitlary, you c**t, why did you kill Vince Foster, Chris Stevens, and thousands of other innocents, and why shouldn’t you be executed RIGHT EFFING NOW?!?

    and so on.

    I think that is what Halperin is hoping for, at least. They’re certainly questions he would feel comfortable asking.

  108. 108.

    Vhh

    @hovercraft: another problem is that shit may well hit the fan @ Fox after the election, and ol Chris Wallace needs to be prepared to jump in at least two opposite directions. He cannot afford to offend any possible player or he is done. This could actually force him to straddle the middle. We’ll see if he is smart enough to figure this out.

  110. 110.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Applejinx: You didn’t understand a thing I wrote, did you? I worked for Bill in ’92 and ’96. I know what the politics of the ’90s were. I still say that your conception of HRC as a cold, vicious player is lacking. I also have no illusions that you are capable of seeing her any other way.

  111. 111.

    daves09

    Yesterday in Politico there was a long piece about how depressed everyone at Clinton campaign headquarters is. Except that was just the reporter’s take. Every single quote from Clinton people was * nah, we’re great, not letting it bother us.* Very next story was about Clinton overconfidence-again based on just the reporters feelings that they should be overconfident, or maybe in deep despair or really just about anything the could pull out of their hoo-haws.

  112. 112.

    Applejinx

    @Omnes Omnibus: Prove me wrong. It’ll be obvious. I will be DELIGHTED to be wrong.

    Every time I turn around there’s some personal friend or someone whose opinion I’d otherwise value, going ‘those (democrat) motherfuckers!’.

    I don’t think the government can get corrupted in a one-sided way. Dems and Reps have different agendas but they’re playing roughly the same game, with the Village as a collaborator with an agenda all their own. I picture Hillary as playing that game, better than anyone, with (according to our platform) a righteous and good purpose. If you want ‘holier than the wicked politicians’ there’s Stein, or maybe Bernie.

    Who is endorsing Hillary, and I am sure he still feels hard done by. But he is a politician too, and his purposes are served by Hillary’s winning.

    Maybe it would be easier to understand this if you folks think for a moment of how eager you all were to believe the most ridiculously overblown stuff about Bernie. Nobody fucking thought he was sincere. Maybe all us lefties are sincere in our own ways, and it would be obvious if not for the stinking People’s Front of Judea.

    Splitters! ;P :)

  113. 113.

    waysel

    @hovercraft: The Bengazi mom will start screaming “Murderer” as soon as Hillary walks out. She’ll be removed, and Donald will honorably walk out of the debate, as protest to the injustice done by Hillarys’ thugs and the rigged debate overseers.

  115. 115.

    PatrickG

    @Omnes Omnibus: Oh, I remember the primary threads. But whatever the motivation, Applejinx is voting Hillary, supporting Hillary, and trying to convince friends to do the same.

    GOTV! Or rehash old fights. Your call.

  119. 119.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Applejinx:

    Prove me wrong. It’ll be obvious. I will be DELIGHTED to be wrong.

    How exactly could I do that? You have your opinion of a woman whose resume is public record. Look, I am glad that you will vote for her. Nevertheless, I think your analysis is puerile.

  120. 120.

    hovercraft

    @waysel:
    The poor woman has been driven insane by grief, so I can see that happening, for normal people will wonder why she was brought to the debate when she obviously so fragile. They will blame Trump for exploiting he grief. Bannon and Bossie and Trump will love it and think they’ve had a major win, humans, not so much.

  123. 123.

    PatrickG

    @redshirt: I’m perfectly happy to relitigate old scores under President Clinton’s watch. After phone banking and holding it in, I have no patience for omnes lacking focus.

  124. 124.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @PatrickG: I am not sure that AJ is helpful. I am not convinced that “She is an evil bitch, but she is our evil bitch” is an effective argument. YMMV. That is really the best that AJ offers.

  125. 125.

    Applejinx

    @PatrickG: Splitter! ;P :D

    Presidency, Senate, AND the House. Then Bernie can run the Budget committee just like Paul Ryan fears, and he will back anything Hillary wants to do to help stamp out granny-starving.

    Democrats can fight and still be all on the same page for the important stuff. And my brother got on board and ditched his BoB ways and is solid, and the other fellow who was holding out might cave. I don’t know what to do about the wingnut friends who are conferring amongst themselves as if I need to be locked up for daring to CONSIDER the benefits of trusting Hillary to be on the right track.

    If I stomp in and inform them their whole world is full of shit and so are they and Hillary kisses babies (not on the lips like Trump, and not telling them how hot they’ll be in 18 I mean 14 years), they’ll just drop me as even a friend. And even in an election season as crazy as this one, I don’t need that.

    Oh, and efgoldman: wrong? I’ll accept unqualified, that’s why I’m supporting Clinton, who is completely qualified in every sense. But Bernie’s endless stump speech is not wrong. Hillary confirmed important parts of it in her ‘leaked speeches’ and was right to do so.

    Now, if you specifically mean the nutty paranoia of Nevada and the end-game, yeah that was wrong. Too many berniacs, who don’t know the details of how things are done. But that’s why we’re better off not running him for President, which we’re not.

  126. 126.

    PatrickG

    @Omnes Omnibus: the conversation is revolving around what you are offering here. I volunteered tonight, you’re trashing a person who I might have spoken to tonight.

    November 9 we can talk about how Sanders poisoned the well. Can we just finished king not right now? Priorities. And a long night.

    Eta: that’s fucking not. Leaving it in to illustrate that autocorrect is the pressing issue of our time.

  128. 128.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @efgoldman: Yup, sincerely deluded, sincerely disinterested in down-ticket races (“we’ll see”), sincerely moronic about the realities of working with Congress and the broader electorate (“look out the window, Mitch….”).

  129. 129.

    Applejinx

    @PatrickG: In fairness this is a safe place to trash other posters. I’m not offended that he’s trashing me; I’m not making many concessions, because what set me off was the talk about the O’Keefe video.

    I am STILL upset about the personal friend who totally bought into that and is adamant that it’s just as she thought it was.

    When you have a friend, you try to see their side, and it’s definitely hurting my brain. I’m three hours past my bedtime and still distressed by that unresolved tension, and there’s not a bloody thing I can do about it. I cannot defend her, but man: if you’re trashing me, you might as well be ready to flush my really very good friend, who’s been there for me through some heavy stuff and vice versa.

    Then there’s the other friend with the hemophiliac son…

  131. 131.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @PatrickG: I am not suggesting that Sanders poisoned the well. I am iffy about AJ’s usefullness as a HRC advocate. Me, I would prefer that AJ simply shut up and vote. I find AJ’s advocacy unhelpful. If you disagree, then disagree. But you should understand that I don’t hold AJ’s pro-Bernie views against him/her. Bernie has been doing a good job of advocating for Clinton.

  132. 132.

    redshirt

    @Applejinx: Challenge them on one specific, your choice. Lies. Emails. Benghazi. Whatever. Make them claim something specific.

    Once they realize they cannot, their minds will be freed of the Republican Hex and they will vote D forever after. Amen.

  133. 133.

    PatrickG

    @Applejinx: also, follow my lead and get off the internet. Life issues like you’re describing suck, and the pixels just make it worse… take care of yourself first!

  134. 134.

    Applejinx

    @redshirt: I’m inclined to challenge the Gowdy-worship by pointing out that he ‘redacted’ a thing that he thought the CIA was wrong not to redact, and then treated that as if it was a classified document. Honest, my ass.

    But I can’t: or at least I can’t, in those terms. I gotta just let it stew (hence, I turn up on Balloon Juice in an upset frame of mind).

    Sorry for being a buzzkill: don’t be complacent! I feel like this every time I see Bernie post something good on Facebook (particularly, in support of Clinton) and then watch the howling mob yelling at him and refusing to trust his decision to trust Hillary.

    I know for a fact my very cynical tone is part of what won over my brother. He absolutely doesn’t listen, but that framing worked for him: he’d have written me off completely without it. I have to keep some part of it alive in case I exchange words with him again.

    Can’t wait until this election is over. Night folks, thanks Patrick, no hard feelings Omnes et al. I am going to take some ibuprofen for this headache and try to sleep. Cheers, all you merry warriors ;)

  135. 135.

    PatrickG

    @Omnes Omnibus: it’s not just that I disagree. It’s that I think you’re not helping. At the very least, you’re dispiriting a Hillary volunteer by specifically bringing up primary season bj threads. For my sake, let bj be a safe space for the next three weeks or so? :)

  138. 138.

    SFAW

    @efgoldman:

    Yeah, I liked Mike. Not perfect, but pretty damn good.

    Was high school in these parts? I seem to (very vaguely) remember something about Boston or Brookline for Mike, but I’m not sure if I’m filling in Brookline because that’s where you used to be, or what.

  140. 140.

    Applejinx

    @PatrickG: I’ll try harder to do that. I know better.

    Heck, if my friend can politely not read me the riot act for daring to believe in Hillary, I can refrain from suggesting I don’t believe in Hillary ENOUGH :D

  144. 144.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I just back-read that sub-thread. Jesus H. Christ.

    But I’m glad I read it, because I had no idea that I was supporting Hillary because I thought she’d bring about a latter-day liberal paradise (or some such).

    Jesus H. Christ.

  146. 146.

    West of the Rockies (been a while)

    @scott (the other one):

    I’m not sure if there is a less charismatic pundit on TV. More smug and infuriating, sure, but damn he’s a dullard. Brit Hume is equally dull, but he claims to be an actual journalist.

  147. 147.

    Death Panel Truck

    Bad luck ain’t got me so far

    “…and I won’t let it stop me now!”
    /Rod Stewart

    Great guitar song. One of Beck’s best. Hell, one of rock’s best.

  148. 148.

    redshirt

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Fuck you. I was trying to deal with an actual thing. But fuck it, you got to say something. Idiot.

    This is the general caliber of Omnes responses these days. Sad!

    I have many things to say Omnes. But I don’t need threats or profanity to do so.

  149. 149.

    SFAW

    @PatrickG:

    given that he ignored the rest of my comment entirely, I may pie filter him. Clearly nothing but a contestant asshole.

    Or, as an alternative, you might consider developing a thicker skin.

    Amazingly enough, there is any number of people on this blog who are assholes, at one time or another, to SOMEBODY. [Notable exceptions: Amir Khalid, efgoldman, Siubhan, raven, a few others.] Maybe even to more than one somebody. It may even be possible that some here think I am an asshole at times. (I’ll pause here a moment, to allow some to either stop laughing, or recover from fainting.)

    But, asshole that I am, I do not pie anyone — not even “shomi,” whom I think should be banned permanently. I expect that at least one person has pied me at some point — so it goes. But I have developed a “short memory” for most slights that have occurred here, because to do otherwise is not a great long-term strategy.

    Naturally, you can do as you please, etc., etc.

  150. 150.

    Turgidson

    @Splitting Image:

    You’re all being too hard on Halperin.

    I don’t think such a thing is possible. He’s just the fucking worst and whatever amount of scorn is heaped upon him is axiomatically woefully inadequate.

  151. 151.

    redshirt

    @SFAW: Bravo!

    No one should so called “Pie” anyone.

    We all have cool stuff to say and read. Different opinions need not be feared. Hear out what everyone has to say. Then make up your mind.

    If it’s a real troll, red in tooth and claw, it will be banned soon enough. Maybe years later.
    If it’s a real internet troll, odds are they don’t have the persistence to last. Or are an actual virus.

  152. 152.

    SFAW

    @redshirt:

    Fuck you.

    (No, I don’t mean it. I just wanted to see your reaction when I responded that way after your thoughtful comment.Of course, it’s kind of tough to see your immediate reaction without a Skype hookup. Oops.)

  153. 153.

    PatrickG

    @SFAW: you, in turn, might consider that telling people to grow a thicker skin in this election cycle is morally despicable.

    Shit is fucked up, and criticizing people working to get. Out. The. Vote. Is insane. Have you considered removing your callouses? You sound like a Republican, for crissakes.

  154. 154.

    Turgidson

    @Adam L Silverman:

    As I said in a thread earlier today, Trump could go on a livestreamed killing spree, and Andrea Mitchell would continue to insist that HRC’s EMAILZ were a far more damaging and consequential story than Trump’s most recent missteps. She’s totally off her rocker about it.

  155. 155.

    SFAW

    @PatrickG:

    Bite me.
    “Morally despicable”? “You sound like a Republican”? Do tell.

    Good to know that telling a delicate flower — whose quasi-knee-jerk response to some comment(s) he didn’t like was rumination about pieing someone — to grow a thicker skin, is considered (by you) to be “morally despicable.”

    How pure is your fucking pony again?

    Glad you’re working to GOTV, it’s important, valuable work.

    But after Hillary gets elected, you might consider elective surgery to remove the pole that appears to be stuck up your ass. I don’t think it’s a life-threatening condition, but it might make life a little more pleasant for you. And us.

  156. 156.

    PatrickG

    @SFAW:

    I applaud your cynical distance from all the issues that matter to our movement. It must be a lot easier to snipe at people from afar, instead of actually, y’know, helping.

    If you are helping, I applaud you, and apologize for my irritation! Could you maybe reread Omnes comments from above and consider how they might impact people who really, really fucking care about this election? Because honestly, Omnes sounds like a soapbox preacher who cares more about relitigating past comment threads than actually fucking helping.

    Can you see how that might, just might, bother those of us who fucking care? Maybe you should check for the beam in your eye, dude.

    Whatever. I’m out. I’ve got a full week of volunteering to do, not to mention training for election protection in Nevada. At least I got told off in a blog comment — that’s the important thing!

  157. 157.

    SFAW

    @PatrickG:

    What is your fucking problem?
    I commented that pieing someone for a (perhaps tense) late-night exchange might not be the most reasoned way of handling things, and you’re trying to turn it into some “I’m fucking holier than thou because I’m doing GOTV work and you’re making fun of my work and you’re morally despicable, etc. etc. ” rant. Are you 13 years old?

    Nothing I said, in my initial comment, had anything to do with any of your volunteering, GOTV, etc work. It’s like seeing Deadbeat Donnie getting asked about policy proposals, and he starts on his “Crooked Hillary” talking points.

    “Our movement”? What the fuck movement is that, pray tell? That is, if you can get down off your high horse to explain to us lowly, morally despicable characters who are not worthy to shine your Tevas.

    You really need to get a grip.

  159. 159.

    PatrickG

    @SFAW:

    My volunteering comments are directly related to the conversations between Omnes and Applejinx. Did you not read the thread? It’s pretty clear. I’m genuinely irritated by people stirring shit on this side (“our movement” means electing Hillary fucking Clinton, if you’re really that dense).

    In case you ARE that dense:
    * I volunteered tonight
    * I talked to people who sound a lot like Applejinx w.r.t. the primary
    * It was frustrating, because we need those people to vote Hillary
    * Having people (AT THIS STAGE OF THE ELECTION) continue to re-litigate the primary is fucking irritating
    * Therefore, I leave irritable comments.

    I’ll admit to some overly verbose word-vomit because I’m keyed up, but c’mon, dude. I am again going to accuse you of sounding like a Republican, because you brought up the stick up the ass first, and with Republicans, it’s always projection.

  160. 160.

    PatrickG

    Correction of overstatement: I talked to one person who sounded a lot like Applejinx. Frankly, it was thrilling, because it was one of two actual conversations I had*. Most people just hang up or don’t answer. I’m sure that had no impact on my irritability tonight. *cough*

    * The other was someone who was voting for Hillary. Woo!

  161. 161.

    SFAW

    @PatrickG:

    You know, you had a chance to “walk back” being a flaming asshole, and you just kept digging. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor.)

    And, so as to soothe your obviously overwrought little brow (another mixed one, I’m on a roll):
    A) I did not read the entire string, until after you started having a hard-on about my comment, but even after reading it, your reaction to Omnes was (to me) out of proportion.
    2) I wrote only in response to your “threat” of pieing, and instead of saying — (because not every commenter here reads every fucking comment in a string, perhaps not even all of yours, you self-important shot) “read the damn chain of comments, you’ll see that Omnes was persistently being a total dickhead” — you started in with the “morally despicable” shit. Another out-of-proportion response
    7) Your “look at how fucking important I am, because I’m bigly doing G.O.T.V.” response was part of what precipitated the “stick up the ass” comment. It’s too bad you were either to sleep-deprived, or just so full of yourself, that you couldn’t see your own sanctimony
    L) You and I are on the same side of the aisle, asshole. Which you’d know if you’d bother to read my comments over the years. What?? You couldn’t be bothered to do some research?? WHAT THE FUCK?? You mean you don’t have the time nor energy to go back through any string to see where I’m coming from? Imagine that. And maybe you’ll see that not everyone seeks out your comments — even in a single thread — because, even though you may be the most important commenter on this thread (perhaps even in all of Balloon Juice), not every one has the time nor inclination to check back on every comment or string.

    You’ve been very quick to call me “morally despicable,” a “Republican,” and so forth. Perhaps, if you got some sleep last night, you’ll decide you were just a bit over the top. One would hope so.

    Good luck with the NV GOTV today (and this week). I see Masto is ahead of Heck in some polls, perhaps that will be the final outcome, too.

  162. 162.

    Procopius

    I’m a little superstitious, too. I believe that if only we could get Butcher’s Bill Kristol to pronounce that Trump’s election is a sure thing, a slam dunk, as good as done, then we could relax a little bit.

  163. 163.

    Procopius

    @Applejinx:

    I’ve never doubted her ruthlessness, only her intentions.

    Well, that’s my problem, I doubt her intentions — a lot. I don’t know why she’s hanging out with the leaders of the neocons. Why did she promote Victoria Nuland? Why did she approve the coup in the Ukraine? Why did she approve the bombing campaign in Libya? No we haven’t heard the explanation yet, and probably never will. What did she think we were going to get for helping with that? The explanation given at the time was transparently a lie. Why has she been so insistent — obsessed — with getting Assad out in Syria? Just Because Prince Bindar or King Salman want it? I’m really scared she hangs out with irrational people who think we can “win” a nuclear war.

Comments are closed.