Yes Trump is extremely touchy. The Biden campaign (and associated super-pacs) are funded well enough that they can fight any stupid lawsuits off. If it gets to the Supreme Court - though I doubt it will go that far - would be interesting to see the intellectual contortions of the conservative judges who were behind Citizens United but surely would find some reason to rule against these ads. Not really though as lies are protected by the 1st amendment or Trump would have spent the last thirty years destitute or in jail.

[QUOTE=garo;543313]So did anyone see Trump's latest campaign spot? It's brutal and funny (to anyone not in the #VoteBlueNoMatterWhat camp) and demonstrates why Biden is not a safe bet.
[URL]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-obama-parody-video-biden-2020-election-a9474521.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Notice how your take differs from the Independent editors, who felt obliged to use the loaded descriptors 'bizarre' and 'strange' in reference to the video. Dude, it's a *parody* video, as your own article goes on to note.

And note the inane lawyerly parsing of what again is noted as being a parody video:

"the 27-second long video appeared to have taken a comment made by Biden about his days working in a public pool and twisted it to make unsubstantiated claims about the former vice president."

I'm picturing Dave Chappelle, in his famous uptight-white-stiff parody persona, saying that "unsubstantiated claims" bit. After 4 years of watching Trump first mount a hostile takeover of the Reuplican party, then pull off the biggest upset in US political history, these bubble-dwelling MSM weenies *still* have no clue about his m.o. - literal "substantiated claims" truth is irrelevant. In the present case, as you note, to non-Team-Blue-hyperpartisans the salient questions re. the video are [a] is it funny? and [b] does it convey the moral truth about Joe Biden? Again, from the article:

"The comments attributed to Mr Biden on Monday appeared to be taken from a 2017 event at which the Democrat described children rubbing his hairy legs that “turned blonde in the sun” whilst he worked security at the Wilmington pool, also saying at the time that he had faced off with a local gang leader called ‘CornPop’."

So in the target demographic for the 'bizarre' and 'strange' parody video, do you think the actual stuff coming from Biden is going to put the lie to the parody video, or give it resonance? 'Cause all the actual stuff from Biden's past, including weird comments about sniffing women's hair and now multiple sexual assault allegations, are screaming "creepy pervert and serial fabulist" to anyone not drinking the Team Blue kool-ade.

Exactly! It has nothing to do with how accurate or "good faith" these attacks are. It's about manipulating the media to create and manage perceptions. Something Trump has shown himself to be very very good at and Biden is basically an open goal.

The Pelosi ad - which is an actual ad and not a parody video - is even more devastating. I link a fact-check article which embeds the ad to show how these fact-checks are utterly useless when confronted with Trump.
[URL]https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trump-campaign-takes-pelosis-words-out-of-context/[/URL]

You can clutch as many pearls as you like about her words being taken out of context but the fact is that leading Democrats are easy material with their gilded lifestyles and being tone-deaf. Note that Trump has a gilded lifestyle too but how many attacks ads on his golden chandeliers did we see in 2016? How effective were they? And note effective here means not getting people to switch sides - that ship sailed long ago and 25% of the population will always vote their party - but to persuade the softer supporters/independents/moderates to stay at home or to vote for you.

PS: You can actually hear someone sniggering when Pelosi says I don't think so in the fact-check :rolleyes:

[quote=ewmayer;543393]Notice how your take differs from the Independent editors, who felt obliged to use the loaded descriptors 'bizarre' and 'strange' in reference to the video. Dude, it's a *parody* video, as your own article goes on to note.

And note the inane lawyerly parsing of what again is noted as being a parody video:

"the 27-second long video appeared to have taken a comment made by Biden about his days working in a public pool and twisted it to make unsubstantiated claims about the former vice president."
<snip>[/quote]

I was wondering, though -- what demographic is the [i]Independent[/i] gearing its article to? How many US voters read it?

But yeah -- it's useless to point out when anything [i]Il Duce[/i] & Co. puts out is false, misleading, etc. Well, I mean, like, [b][i]DUH![/i][/b] Of [i]course[/i] they're lying! If you're him one of his toadies, it's what you do.

Campaign ads that get under his skin and have him or his henchmen threatening -- or even [i]filing[/i] lawsuits -- that's what [i]I'm[/i] talkin' 'bout! Get me footage of [i]Il Duce[/i]'s recent statements on COVID-19 (for instance) and a video editor, and I could crank out any number of campaign ads that would make his :censored: head explode. And then I'd use his threats and temper tantrums as material for [i]more[/i] campaign ads.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;543631]I was wondering, though -- what demographic is the [I]Independent[/I] gearing its article to? How many US voters read it?
[/QUOTE]

I think Ernst's point here is the complete absence of outrage among journalists at Trump's lies. Their false sense of "objectivity" and even-handedness has turned them into unthinking morons. Their language is devoid of any sense of urgency or passion. They are more of less insulated from Trump's idiocy as they are well-heeled mostly white folks living in large cities. You could squeeze more blood out of a stone.

[QUOTE]
Campaign ads that get under his skin and have him or his henchmen threatening -- or even [I]filing[/I] lawsuits -- that's what [I]I'm[/I] talkin' 'bout! Get me footage of [I]Il Duce[/I]'s recent statements on COVID-19 (for instance) and a video editor, and I could crank out any number of campaign ads that would make his :censored: head explode. And then I'd use his threats and temper tantrums as material for [I]more[/I] campaign ads.[/QUOTE]Ask yourself why the Democrats haven't already done that? Why haven't they plastered the airwaves with this. What did Bloomberg spend a billion dollars on? You can't fight a raging fire with a spoonful of water.

I suppose everyone has heard the description of Bloomberg's campaign: He brought a wallet to a knife fight. (Maybe this was about a debate. You get the point, though))

[url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-have-womens-groups-gone-dead-silent-on-biden-assault-accusation]Why Have Women’s Groups Gone Dead Silent on Biden Sex-Assault Accusation?[/url] | The Daily Beast
[quote]The Daily Beast contacted 10 top national pro-women organizations for this story, including Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women. Most organizations did not respond to a detailed request for comment about the allegation by Tara Reade, a former staff assistant in Biden’s Senate office who has accused the former vice president of forcibly penetrating her with his fingers in the early 1990s. Others replied and did not provide a statement. One prominent women’s political group cited a scheduling conflict and asked to be kept “in mind for other opportunities!” When pressed if the following day would work better, an associate said it would not, citing another scheduling conflict. The near-total lack of acknowledgement from nearly a dozen leading pro-women organizations comes as new corroboration has emerged with respect to the allegation, which the Biden campaign has categorically denied. Neither the Biden campaign nor Reade responded to requests from The Daily Beast for comment Tuesday. It also is taking place as prominent elected women in the Democratic Party rally to Biden’s side.[/quote]
It is especially interesting to compare Reade's allegations, and the MSM coverage of same, to those of Christine Blasey-Ford, who accused now-Supreme-Court-justice Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a high school party over 30 years prior. With Reade we have not only a much-more-recent allegation, but one she discussed contemporaneously with multiple people:

[url=https://www.businessinsider.com/former-neighbor-corroborates-joe-bidens-accuser-2020-4]A former neighbor of Joe Biden’s accuser Tara Reade has come forward to corroborate her sexual-assault account, saying Reade discussed the allegations in detail in the mid-1990s[/url] | Business Insider

[url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/video-tara-reade-mother-joe-biden-larry-king.html]Video Appears to Show Tara Reade’s Mother Knew of Allegations Against Biden in 1993[/url] | Slate

[url=https://theintercept.com/2020/04/24/new-evidence-tara-reade-joe-biden/]New Evidence Supports Credibility of Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Biden[/url] | Intercept

[url=https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/the-biden-trap-woman-vice-president.html]The Biden Trap[/url] | Rebecca Traister, New York Magazine
[quote]As the candidate faces credible assault allegations, his progressive female colleagues are being offered a poisoned chalice.” More: “And part of what’s sickeningly clear is that if Biden remains the Democratic nominee, whichever woman gets the nod to be his running mate will wind up drinking from a poisoned chalice. Because the promise to choose a woman ensures that whoever she is, she will be forced to answer — over and over again — for Biden’s treatment of other women, including the serious allegations of assault leveled by Tara Reade. This double bind was already apparent this weekend, in advance of McHugh’s reporting, when New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confirmed once again that she would vote for Biden despite their sharp political differences.[/quote]
To which Naked Capitalism's Lambert Strether replies, "The poisoned chalice is one that liberal Democrat “feminists” mixed for themselves and drank long ago. I mean, is Bill Clinton still a respected party elder, or not?" Lambert also had a special on a particulalrly egregious exemplar from the major-media whitewashing of the Reade allegations:

[url=https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/04/200pm-water-cooler-special-the-nation-cancelled-over-tara-reade-coverage.html]2:00PM Water Cooler Special: The Nation CANCELLED Over Tara Reade Coverage[/url] | naked capitalism

[url=https://apnews.com/816aaaa51ff9ca49a173ec7e60417d83]Court: Kansas can't require voters to show citizenship proof[/url][quote]BELLE PLAINE, Kan. (AP) — A federal appeals court panel ruled Wednesday that Kansas can't require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register, dealing a blow to efforts by Republicans in several states who have pursued restrictive voting laws as a way of combating voter fraud.
<snip>
The law was championed by former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who led President Donald Trump's now-defunct voter fraud commission. Kobach was a leading source for Trump's unsubstantiated claim that millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally may have voted in the 2016 election.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;544237][URL="https://apnews.com/816aaaa51ff9ca49a173ec7e60417d83"]Court: Kansas can't require voters to show citizenship proof[/URL][/QUOTE]
With the current makeup of The Supremes, I am not confident that the Appeals ruling will survive. :ermm:

[QUOTE=kladner;544255]With the current makeup of The Supremes, I am not confident that the Appeals ruling will survive. :ermm:[/QUOTE]
With the current makeup of the Constitution, I am confident the Appeals court ruling ought be promptly overturned, with nationwide applicability. Noncitizens of the US ought not be voting, except in the elections of countries they're citizens of.

[QUOTE=kriesel;544367]With the current makeup of the Constitution, I am confident the Appeals court ruling ought be promptly overturned, with nationwide applicability. Noncitizens of the US ought not be voting, except in the elections of countries they're citizens of.[/QUOTE]
You didn't read the article, or you did not comprehend it.
[QUOTE]While the court agreed “in the abstract” that Kansas has a legitimate interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters, the court in an 84-page ruling said it did not see any evidence that such an interest made it necessary to burden voters’ rights in this case.
The judges noted that the district court had found essentially no evidence that the integrity of the state’s electoral process had been threatened, that the registration of ineligible voters had caused voter rolls to be inaccurate, or that voter fraud had occurred.
[U]It found that at most [B]67 noncitizens[/B] registered or attempted to register in Kansas [B]in the last 19 years[/B].[/U]
[/QUOTE]