Team Hillary cracks the whip on comedians and their venue that made fun of her

[Torie]

Well, I already knew that Hillary had a thin skin, but it may be even thinner than I thought. Yes, I know, it comes from a right wing site, and thus must be false and all, blah, blah.

[Holmes]

Good. We need a no-nonsense person in the White House.

[bedstuy]

Well, I already knew that Hillary had a thin skin, but it may be even thinner than I thought. Yes, I know, it comes from a right wing site, and thus must be false and all, blah, blah.

Torie, we would trust this story if it was from a right wing journalism website.  It's from the National Review, which is just "opinion" and thus is not a source of journalism. 

Now, imagine you were a journalist.  You can't get a quote from a business owner, partially promoting their business, and then run the story.  This Journalism 101 stuff.  You need to call the Clinton campaign and at least try to verify whether it's true.  Until someone does that, there's nothing here. 

Give me a break, you'll just believe anything if it comes from right-wing tabloid journalism, right?  Do you believe the Benghazi conspiracy theory and that Hillary killed Vince Foster?

[Holmes]

Torie does it all the time though. He'll drop a link to an opinion article or something not really related to what he's even talking about and will say "well look at this, not saying it's true or anything but makes you wonder". Very Sam Spade-esque. Best to just entertain him.

[Torie]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

[Simfan34]

That's even worse!

[Bacon King]

This is a complete non-issue being hyped into something it's not by the right-wing spin media that desperately wishes this was true

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/11/hillary_clinton_laugh_factory_this_is_how_your_hillary_smear_sausage_gets.html

[quote]Masada told me that on Nov. 11, he got a call from a man named John—he doesn’t remember the last name—who sounded “distinguished, like an attorney.” John said he represented the Clinton campaign. He asked Masada “who had put him up” to posting the video. In a menacing voice, he told Masada, “This is not good for your business.” John then asked for the email or phone numbers of the five comedians who were featured in the video. “I told him, ‘Eff you,’ and I hung up,” says Masada.

How does Masada know that John was actually from the Clinton camp? He doesn’t. “I’m glad I’m not in politics or any of that stuff; you might know more than I do,” he says. “Maybe it was a prank, I have no idea. Was it real? Not real? I have no idea. He didn’t call back, that’s all I can say.” Nor is Masada sure how Judicial Watch even heard about the call. “The way I understand it, it’s because one of the [Laugh Factory] employees told a couple of people,” he says.

There are a few possibilities about what might have happened here. Maybe someone from Clinton’s campaign really did think it was a good idea to call a major figure in the world of stand-up comedy and make empty threats over a short video. Maybe the caller was a random, overzealous Hillarybot. Maybe it was a practical joker. Or maybe it was a dirty trickster, who then took steps to send the story ricocheting through conservative media. ​(For what it’s worth, the Clinton camp ​tells me​ the call didn't come from them. Judicial Watch tells me they stand by their story.)*​​

[bedstuy]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

[Torie]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

Bacon's response on all of this is a bit more helpful to the conversation (his source, Slate, is biased too, but that's fine with me), but that's just my opinion. You see, that is how it works. Somebody puts up something, and somebody else researches it, and puts that up, and over time, readers can evaluate where the truth probably lies. Simply dismissing something out of the box because of the source I don't think is the best way to get at the truth actually.

Presumably in due course, the Clinton campaign will deny that anyone from their camp made the call. And yes, it would be incredibly stupid if someone from their camp had made the call.

[bedstuy]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

Bacon's response on all of this is a bit more helpful to the conversation (his source, Slate, is biased too, but that's fine with me), but that's just my opinion. You see, that is how it works. Somebody puts up something, and somebody else researches it, and puts that up, and over time, readers can evaluate where the truth probably lies. Simply dismissing something out of the box because of the source I don't think is the best way to get at the truth actually.

Presumably in due course, the Clinton campaign will deny that anyone from their camp made the call. And yes, it would be incredibly stupid if someone from their camp had made the call.

The Slate article actually says that the Clinton campaign denied that they made the call.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, let me educate you on how journalism works.  You don't have a story until you verify it somewhat.  Like, "How do you know this person worked for the Clinton campaign?"  That is a basic question which the original story doesn't answer.  The Slate story has the answer and the guy has a very unconvincing answer.  He's not reliable with that kind of answer, especially because this is marketing his business.  And, once you get a silly accusation, you have to call the Clinton campaign for comment.  It wasn't done until an actual journalist at Slate contacted the Clinton campaign.

I hope you're not actually this stupid.  But, this act of playing dumb to smear political candidates, it's a bad look.  "On one hand, we have an unsubstantiated rumor that doesn't make sense."  Hmm...

Well, guess what Torie, John Kasich called me yesterday and said he was secretly a member of ISIS and he murdered a political opponent by poisoning him in the early 90s.  So, I guess we're going to have to take that somewhat seriously.  I mean, maybe it didn't happen, but it's something to keep in mind.  After all, Atlas Forum is a website, on the internet.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I thought Clinton would be near death by now.

[Torie]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

Bacon's response on all of this is a bit more helpful to the conversation (his source, Slate, is biased too, but that's fine with me), but that's just my opinion. You see, that is how it works. Somebody puts up something, and somebody else researches it, and puts that up, and over time, readers can evaluate where the truth probably lies. Simply dismissing something out of the box because of the source I don't think is the best way to get at the truth actually.

Presumably in due course, the Clinton campaign will deny that anyone from their camp made the call. And yes, it would be incredibly stupid if someone from their camp had made the call.

The Slate article actually says that the Clinton campaign denied that they made the call.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, let me educate you on how journalism works.  You don't have a story until you verify it somewhat.  Like, "How do you know this person worked for the Clinton campaign?"  That is a basic question which the original story doesn't answer.  The Slate story has the answer and the guy has a very unconvincing answer.  He's not reliable with that kind of answer, especially because this is marketing his business.  And, once you get a silly accusation, you have to call the Clinton campaign for comment.  It wasn't done until an actual journalist at Slate contacted the Clinton campaign.

I hope you're not actually this stupid.  But, this act of playing dumb to smear political candidates, it's a bad look.  "On one hand, we have an unsubstantiated rumor that doesn't make sense."  Hmm...

Well, guess what Torie, John Kasich called me yesterday and said he was secretly a member of ISIS and he murdered a political opponent by poisoning him in the early 90s.  So, I guess we're going to have to take that somewhat seriously.  I mean, maybe it didn't happen, but it's something to keep in mind.  After all, Atlas Forum is a website, on the internet.

You are really wrought up about all of this aren't you? Look at it this way: now if the matter comes up out there on the Fruited Plain somewhere which Forumites run across, Forumites will know the ins and outs of the story, and that there is no evidence the alleged call came from Team Hillary, so the story is a big nothing. Isn't that just grand?

[bedstuy]

You are really wrought up about all of this aren't you? Look at it this way: now if the matter comes up out there on the Fruited Plain somewhere which Forumites run across, Forumites will know the ins and outs of the story, and that there is no evidence the alleged call came from Team Hillary, so the story is a big nothing. Isn't that just grand?

Here's what you said at first...

Well, I already knew that Hillary had a thin skin, but it may be even thinner than I thought. Yes, I know, it comes from a right wing site, and thus must be false and all, blah, blah.

I shouldn't have to fact-check you.  You should be able to look at a news story and look at it somewhat objectively.  Aren't you a lawyer or something?  Aren't you supposed to be trained to look at evidence and know what is credible? 

Yet, you thought Hillary Clinton was about to die because it was reported in a super-market tabloid?  You believed this story too.  You're acting like a gullible idiot.  I don't think you are a gullible idiot.  But, you become a gullible idiot when it involves an smear against Obama or Clinton.  It's a bad look. 

Also, could you investigate this for me?

[Torie]

Bedstuy I know your style is sharp elbows, and when you smell blood you go in for the kill, but I never said I believed anything. The word "may" was in there. It's a story out there and I passed it on. You think it makes me look like a gullible idiot. You are entitled to your opinion. We are done.

[Adam Griffin]

Torie has increasingly become the textbook case of someone who enjoys JAQing off.

[bedstuy]

Bedstuy I know your style is sharp elbows, and when you smell blood you go in for the kill, but I never said I believed anything. The word "may" was in there. It's a story out there and I passed it on. You think it makes me look like a gullible idiot. You are entitled to your opinion. We are done.

OK.  Let me revise my prior statement:  John Kasich may be a member of ISIS.  We just don't know yet, but I have to pass that information along because the public has a right to know.  There's a chance he is, there's a chance he isn't.  We can both agree it requires investigation.

Don't act like I'm the jerk here.  You're passing off scurrilous, unsubstantiated rumors that you should know are nonsense.  I don't know where you were raised, but I was taught that kind of behavior is wrong.  And, you don't get off by saying "I threw a 'may' on there."  If you see something that you don't think is credible, why are you posting it, especially without saying you think it is not credible?  If you don't like being called out on this, stop being a far-right yenta.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Given bedstuy's reaction to anyone even passing along a story that represents criticism of Hillary, I have a guess as to who it was who called up and threatened the Laugh Factory.

[Bull Moose Base]

You are really wrought up about all of this aren't you? Look at it this way: now if the matter comes up out there on the Fruited Plain somewhere which Forumites run across, Forumites will know the ins and outs of the story, and that there is no evidence the alleged call came from Team Hillary, so the story is a big nothing. Isn't that just grand?

Here's what you said at first...

Well, I already knew that Hillary had a thin skin, but it may be even thinner than I thought. Yes, I know, it comes from a right wing site, and thus must be false and all, blah, blah.

I shouldn't have to fact-check you.  You should be able to look at a news story and look at it somewhat objectively.  Aren't you a lawyer or something?  Aren't you supposed to be trained to look at evidence and know what is credible? 

Yet, you thought Hillary Clinton was about to die because it was reported in a super-market tabloid?  You believed this story too.  You're acting like a gullible idiot.  I don't think you are a gullible idiot.  But, you become a gullible idiot when it involves an smear against Obama or Clinton.  It's a bad look. 

Also, could you investigate this for me?

Don't forget his estimate of 40 or 50%  chance Hillary has to drop out because of legal problems.

[cinyc]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

I'm sick of this crap.  Your fellow "progressive" travellers routinely post articles from left-wing websites like Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos and Mother Jones all the time.  I don't see conservatives pulling the same "I don't believe it" crap that you leftists do whenever a conservative quotes from a conservative source.

This happened.  Is there any reason to believe no call was made?

[Kingpoleon]

Bedstuy I know your style is sharp elbows, and when you smell blood you go in for the kill, but I never said I believed anything. The word "may" was in there. It's a story out there and I passed it on. You think it makes me look like a gullible idiot. You are entitled to your opinion. We are done.

If you stand your ground, you're stupid for never changing your mind when presented with facts from the Huffington Post and Rachel Maddow and Matthews. If you change your mind, you're a wishy-washy fool who can never take a solid stance.


The Democrats on forums have very organized attack lines.

[Bull Moose Base]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

I'm sick of this crap.  Your fellow "progressive" travellers routinely post articles from left-wing websites like Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos and Mother Jones all the time.  I don't see conservatives pulling the same "I don't believe it" crap that you leftists do whenever a conservative quotes from a conservative source.

This happened.  Is there any reason to believe no call was made?

No. Is there any reason to think someone on Hillary's campaign made a call? The Clintons are in their 3rd decade of being made fun of and have never done anything that remotely stupid. On the other hand, dirty tricks and false flag stuff happens all the time like the cop who tried to frame BLM with his suicide and the idiot who wrote a backwards B on her face in the mirror and said it was Obama supporters (which conservative media excitedly reported until it was exposed as a sham at which point they never mentioned the story again). Also, what stories have Talking Points Memo reported that turned out not to be true. I'm not even much of a Hillary fan. In fact, I think Republcians making bogus attacks on her have hurt Sanders more than anyone since it helped rally Democrats to support her.

[bedstuy]

I am just passing it along. Calm down guys. This over-psychological analyzing of my motives gets tedious. And just because a mag has a bias, and is an opinion journal, does not mean per se that whatever they have in it is factually false. But then you already knew that.

The same story is in the Daily Mail.

Oh, an actual literal tabloid!

Listen, the National Review or the John Birch Society Reader or whatever might reference an actual story.  If they talk about a NYT or Wall Street Journal article, that would be one thing.  But, what is the source of this?  Has it been reported by any journalist?  No.  It's been reported by Republicans and tabloids because it's just unsubstantiated buzz marketing by a comedy club.

I'm sick of this crap.  Your fellow "progressive" travellers routinely post articles from left-wing websites like Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos and Mother Jones all the time.  I don't see conservatives pulling the same "I don't believe it" crap that you leftists do whenever a conservative quotes from a conservative source.

This happened.  Is there any reason to believe no call was made?

Listen bro, there's a difference between news and opinion.  

The conservative sites that have tried to push this story haven't done their homework.  They didn't do basic journalism that you would learn at a high school newspaper like I did.  It's not a right or left thing, it's just about facts.  

Now, here's the thing about credibility, one person saying something is pretty weak.  One person saying something to promote their business is weaker.  One person with an inconsistent story, "some guy who sounded like a lawyer called me!!!" is weaker.  One person with a story that doesn't really make sense is weaker still IE, why would Hillary Clinton's campaign care about this?  And, if this is true, he should produce the phone number of the person who called.  That could be checked and verified by the media.  

So, is it possible this happened.  Definitely it's possible.  But, there's a lack of evidence or reliability that would convince you that's 25% likely or 51% likely.  So, cool your jets.  

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Torie, serious question, do you have Syphilis?

[°Leprechaun]

Is everyone here drunk or something?

[°Leprechaun]

Seriously, there are still 354 days until the election, I hope you'all can make it that long.