- Joined
- May 26, 2020
- Messages
- 3,672
- Reaction score
- 1,361
- Location
- menifee calif.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
We have a system of justice that says, got it on tape or it didnt happen. This, even when plenty of evidence is handy. We have justice dependent on emotion. And spectacle. When the cops bashed in my door at midnite, and slapped me in handcuffs, I spoke VERY loudly, to have every neighbor take notice. This, so they did not assassinate me. They were there to get revenge for my destroying a corruption ring. I knew that not getting it on tape was a risk to my life.
We need to get past the necessity of outrage by sight. There are too many people losing, due to not having VISUAL PROOF. This is not justice. This is a lottery.
And, at the same time, that proclivity for action, based upon the outrage of having tape, leads us to FAKE news. DEEP FAKES are the answer to NOT HAVING IT ON TAPE. Steve Scalise FAKED a tape, to SMEAR Biden. KNOWINGLY and with aforethought. HE should be ran out of town on a rail. He defended the practice, DEFIANTLY.
Until you neednt tape to get justice, THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.
Here is where I admit to being an idiot. I thought putting cameras on phones, was a stupid idea. I didnt grasp the life and death that cameras leverage. Now I understand.
-----------------------------------------------------
NYT Editorial Board: Congress Must Be Clear: No Doctored Videos
Last weekend, Representative Steve Scalise, the Louisiana Republican, shared a video clip featuring Ady Barkan, a progressive activist, asking Joe Biden, “Do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding for police?” To which Mr. Biden responded, “Yes, absolutely.”
Except that Mr. Barkan, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and communicates with the aid of a computerized voice, had not included the words “for police” in his question. Those were spliced in by Mr. Scalise’s team, making it seem as though Mr. Biden was expressing direct support for defunding the police — something he explicitly opposes, no matter how loudly Republicans claim otherwise. Mr. Biden’s criminal justice plan, in fact, includes $300 million in additional funding for police departments.
Outraged by the violation, Mr. Barkan called out the congressman. “@SteveScalise, These are not my words,” he tweeted on Sunday afternoon. “I have lost my ability to speak, but not my agency or my thoughts. You and your team have doctored my words for your own political gain. Please remove this video immediately. You owe the entire disability community an apology.”
It is one thing for Russian trolls or shadowy political groups to manipulate videos with an eye toward misleading American voters. For a sitting lawmaker — the No. 2 Republican in the House, no less — to do so is inexcusable.
-snip-
Read more: Opinion | Congress Must Be Clear: No Doctored Videos - The New York Times
2
Are you saying that when Ady Barkan was talking about redirecting funding, he was not talking about redirecting police funding?
.
Are you saying that faking news is fine, if your intention is proper?
I knew you wouldn't answer the question because he was asking Biden about redirecting police funding. In fact he asked Biden about redirecting police funding twice during that conversation, and both times answered "Yes".
Your article is a misleading piece of partisan crap.
Why was the TRUTH not good enough? The TRUTH is, Steve Scalise made a DEEP FAKE. FACT. And this is JUST the beginning.
Deep fake...
According to your op, splicing those 2 words in constituted an attempt to deceive the public, and make people FALSELY believe that Joe Biden showed support for redirecting police funding. That is a LIE.
The funding that Ady Barkan proposed should be redirected, was absolutely, positively police funding. Since that is the case, please explain how putting the words "for police" at the end of his question in any way mislead the public?
Deep fake...
According to your op, splicing those 2 words in constituted an attempt to deceive the public, and make people FALSELY believe that Joe Biden showed support for redirecting police funding. That is a LIE.
The funding that Ady Barkan proposed should be redirected, was absolutely, positively police funding. Since that is the case, please explain how putting the words "for police" at the end of his question in any way mislead the public?
DEEP FAKE. No matter how you justify it. What would stop even more blatant lies, like doctoring pics to make Biden look half dead already? You are PUTIN's FEMALE DOG.
I'll ask you again...
How did splicing in those two words deceive the public and lead them to believe Joe Biden agreed to something that he didn't actually agree to?
Here, I'll help you:
When Ady Barkan suggested redirecting funds, what funds was he talking about?
ANSWER: Police funds.
By adding the 2 words "for police" at the end of Ady Barkan's statement, what meaning did it give to that statement?
ANSWER: It change his statement from "redirecting funds from an unknown entity" to "redirecting funds from the police".
By adding those 2 words, it:
a) Changed Ady Barkan's statement to mean something that wasn't true.
b) Made people believe that Joe Biden answered "yes" to something he hadn't answered yes to
c) Added the necessary context so the public would understand exactly the funding that Joe Biden had agreed he wanted to redirect.
ANSWER: "c"
Your op and the article it was based on is a pile of crap... Pure partisan nonsense.
Game Over.
.
Adding FOR POLICE, was to create a soundbite, and meme, for smearing, WITH LIES. You right wingers are so foul, and evil, that bearing false witness doesnt even phase you anymore.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?