• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scott Walker Gets Punked By Journalist Pretending To Be David Koch

I'm not a fan of Breitbart, and generally am not fond of entrapment situations. That said, as I've said on all sorts of issues, the world isn't black and white. There is a different level of dislike with regards to directly misrepresenting yourself as a specific person and something eneric.

For example, in this case, if the person just put himself forth as a wealthy republican donor rather than attempting to impersonate a specific person I'd have less of an issue with his action. Still not "no" issue, and I wasn't completely without issue with Breitbart's guy either, but I think pretending to be a specific factual person is a bit worse than a more generalized deception as you're not just assuming a new identity but stealing someone elses essentially.

I think often you have to look at what is being uncovered as well, as again things don't function in a vacuum. For example, if what he did on the phone regarding donors was an actual legitimate breakage of the law (and not just some left wing blogger speculating it MIGHT be) then I have far more issues with him because he actually did something illegal. On the flip side, a lot of what he said is as likely to be bluff and bluster as legitiamte strategy and until he actually ATTEMPTS it its not something I would get upset about. This is in part why I'm not fond of these type of styled "stings" when its just to get information, because the fact the information is being gained in a fraudulent way causes the legitimacy, hoensty, and seriousness of things it finds out to be called into question thus making it more useful for propoganda than any kind of honest reporting.

.....but I think pretending to be a specific factual person is a bit worse than a more generalized deception as you're not just assuming a new identity but stealing someone elses essentially.
But that's exactly what O'Keefe did, in that he made himself out to be someone he wasn't. As for Breitbart, I see what he did as just as bad because he dishonestly edited tape to make it appear that something existed where it really didn't.

You know, I am kind of surprised here. I was expecting the hyperpartisan Liberals and Conservatives to assert that what their guys did wasn't as bad as what the other guys did. I really didn't expect it from you. In fact, you are about the last person I expected it from, so I am surprised. You and I don't see eye to eye on a few things, but I respect you as a poster who can be brutal but honest. I have to chalk this up to the fact that maybe you didn't express your point of view as well as you could have. The fact that you are not happy with what O'Keefe and Breitbart did tells me that. But, the way I see it, dishonesty is dishonesty, and there are way too many hyperpartisan assholes, on both the right and the left, who have the gall to call themselves reporters, when they are actually..... (let me coin a new word here) .... Scrivenetutes. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
But that's exactly what O'Keefe did, in that he made himself out to be someone he wasn't.

To my understanding O'Keefe created a false identity and portrayed that. That is different than proclaiming to be an actual factual person. I honestly didn't follow the O'Keefe thing extremely closely, nor have I this, so perhaps I have that information wrong.

As for Breitbart, I see what he did as just as bad because he dishonestly edited tape to make it appear that something existed where it really didn't.

This is seperate to the disguising who you are issue, and I agree here. I dislike edited tapes specifically done to make someone look worse regardless if its Breitbart doing it or Media Matters.

You know, I am kind of surprised here. I was expecting the hyperpartisan Liberals and Conservatives to assert that what their guys did wasn't as bad as what the other guys did. I really didn't expect it from you. In fact, you are about the last person I expected it from, so I am surprised. You and I don't see eye to eye on a few things, but I respect you as a poster who can be brutal but honest. I have to chalk this up to the fact that maybe you didn't express your point of view as well as you could have. The fact that you are not happy with what O'Keefe and Breitbart did tells me that. But, the way I see it, dishonesty is dishonesty, and there are way too many hyperpartisan assholes, on both the right and the left, who have the gall to call themselves reporters, when they are actually..... (let me coin a new word here) .... Scrivenetutes. :mrgreen:

If you'd read my posts much you know I'm not a black and white person Dana. "Dishonesty isn't dishonesty". If you are given $5 dollars back in change when you were supposed to only get $1 and you don't say anything, that's dishonest. If you go into a bank and convince the tellar that you're someone else who has an account there and withdraw $500 that's also dishonest. However, while I have a problem with both of those cases of Dishonesty I have a bigger issue with the second. Yet, you seem to indicate that you'd view them equally because "Dishonesty is dishonesty".

As pointed out in another thread Dana, "to catch a predator" dishonestly presents themselves as someone they're not. Yet you posted in that thread how what they did is perfeclty okay. I thought you said "dishonesty is dishonesty" Dana?

I think there can be various levels to "how bad" something is, however unlike hyperpartisans my "levels" don't change based on whether or not the person has an (R) or (D) next to their names. I think faking who you are or your credentials to try and convince someone to tell you something or do something they normally wouldn't with a reporter, in a journalistic endevour, is a questionable tactic not because I necessarily think its scummy or underhanded but because it raises questions to the legitimacy of it and how much your actions helped play into the situation rather than it being a "normal" thing. Which is why I would have less issue if this guy called up to the governor, claiming to be a generic fake conservative donor, and got him to do the same thing.

I think when you're specifically faking who you are not in a general sense, but in a specific sense, it becomes a bit more underhanded (IE suggesting your Koch rather than suggesting you're just a random conservative donor). In that case, you're further mudding the aters by perhaps playing upon a personal relationship or the reputation of someone else. In that case you're stealing someone elses identity, rather than creating a false one, for your own purposes. That to me is more underhanded, as its a violation in my opinion towards the person you're impersonating as well. I'd have the same issue if someone called up a Global Warming scientist and convinced him he was Al Gore and got him to say incriminating things.

In general, I find the "give myself a fake persona" investigative journalism questionable and faulty but not necessarily dirty or underhanded. When you start stealing individuals identities and representing yourself as a specific someone, that transcends into the more "dirty" side of things where you're potentially causing issues for that person you're pretending to be.
 
This is going to cost Walker support in public opinion polls as well as a blow to his image of a nice guy looking out for taxpayers. The Halloween costume has been stripped off and is is beginning to be revealed for who he really is. And that is a good thing.
 
This is going to cost Walker support in public opinion polls as well as a blow to his image of a nice guy looking out for taxpayers. The Halloween costume has been stripped off and is is beginning to be revealed for who he really is. And that is a good thing.

you can say the same thing over and over, but it doesn't make it true.
 
Last edited:
This is going to cost Walker support in public opinion polls as well as a blow to his image of a nice guy looking out for taxpayers. The Halloween costume has been stripped off and is is beginning to be revealed for who he really is. And that is a good thing.

I'm sure that was the whole purpose of the sting.
However, I think his poll numbers will come back, and people will realize he is indeed looking out for Wisconsin and the tax payers.
 
OK, Where is George Soros funded Media Matters on this one?
This is FOX news and Greta obviously got her facts wrong, did some creative editing, or lied. )

I was sure they'd jump right on this with a headline "Fox got facts wrong again" ;)

Greta Grills Gov. Walker Over Answers During Prank Call | The Blaze

Editor’s note: One of the accounts in this interview seems to use a transcript that does not match the actual audio. The account involves the rude description of MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski.
 
Wisconsin is not siding with the corrupt unions.

your side is losing the war locally. Do you live in Wisconsin? If you did, you would know this to be true.

I actually just got back from Alpine Valley Skiing (in Wisconsin) and saw a few pro walker signs in yards on the drive up there. I didn't see any equivalents supporting the unions. I realize this really doesn't mean much, but found it interesting.
 
Even though I'm sure that question was asked sarcastically, I'll answer it anyway. Walker's acceptance of a gift for "Crush[ing] these bastards" is iffy legally, but him asking Koch to fund anti-union ads in other states is definitely coordination.

So, I listened to the call yesterday, I was working while listening so may have missed it, but didn't hear any such coordination. Is this something like the faker said "he'll fund some anti-union ads in other states", and walker replied sounds good? Or is this actually something real this time? I just looked at the transcript, and didn't see this at all... Are you really just making this up to pretend you have a "gotcha moment"?
 
Last edited:
rasmussen?!?!?!? what a joke.

If that idiot told me there was dirt under the grass i would reach for a shovel just to verify.

Gallup? What a joke..... :roll: Still peddling your wares haymarket? :lamo
 
The Left doesn't have any real facts, so they have to send in, "troublemakers", to create, "facts". Incredible!

You act like there is some group of people going, "Damn we need to do something! Quick, send in Richard to prank phone call Palin!" Just be happy that he didn't edit the hell out of the tape like O’Keefe.

That way, the partisan hacks at CNN could rip into Walker for weeks until the real take came out, and by then no one would care. And the partisan hacks at Fox could deny it the whole time while asking about Obama's birth certificate.
 
Last edited:
since our initial Wisconsin recall thread is toast from the database restore, I thought this would be a good launch pad to resume discussions. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom