Ruh roe….. Coordinators of the coup were working directly with Paul Gosar, Lauren Bovert Mo Brooks, Madison Cawthorne, Andy Biggs and Louie Gohmert pre planning the attack. Katrina Pearson, former Trump aide was on some of those calls. She acted as what they call the liaison between these, uh, organizers and the white house itself. And of course direct contact with Mark Meadows. all coordinated with the planners of the riot at the capitol before the attack. Reports are that Gosar may have, according to these individuals, offered them blanket pardons on Trump’s behalf for whatever the hell was going to happen that day.


D’oh! Becoming more and more obvious why Trump is terrified White House records of those interactions might be presented as evidence. Promising preemptive blanket pardons for people planning to commit treason against the US is treason. Too bad ex presidents can’t invoke privileges….not.

Edit: and…..today it was revealed that on Jan 6 Trump made repeated phone calls to the coup command center manned by Bannon at a nearby hotel, but not The Trump hotel because they wanted to pretend Trump wasn’t involved….but moron that he is, Trump couldn’t help but call every 5 minutes to get updates and give directions. These calls from the whitehouse would likely be recorded too. Ruh roe!

I... how can two people be so entirely useless? The total lack of any pre-planning (hose? bucket?). The way he just stood there watching as it started to spread to the trees. Aiming the extinguisher at the top of the fire. The woman filming and giving direction rather than doing, you know, anything at all. To stop the large fire. Right next to the building she's standing in.

Trump as president will be the same as Trump as presidential candidate. There won't be policies and solutions, he wants to be a demagogue, giving speeches and basking in the adulation. He will delegate the hard work of running the country to other people and stoke his ego presiding over ridiculous meetings where he gives directions and derides his cabinet for failing. "You're fired!"

President Trump will get nothing done and when he pushes the wrong buttons he'll be impeached. The Trump presidency will not be 4 years.

But this guy's video is full of shit. He blissfully ignores the fact that a president must compromise and sometimes even make the best choice from a list of undesireable options. No President can, or should be able to, get everything they want. You can never judge a politician based on every naive expectation you have, because you have the luxury of idealism while they're dealing with reality. The best you can do is support someone who's agenda best matches your own and applaud them when they succeed.

It's like pinball. You can use what control you have to push the ball where you want it but you cannot ultimately control where it goes.

This video starts out be denigrating the idea that game theory should influence our choices in politics. Well that's one of the stupidest things he could say. You cannot refuse to throw the dice in monopoly, claim all the properties and believe you're winning. You have to develop the best strategy you can for the best outcome you can manage with the rules that are in place. If you don't like the rules...change them before the next game begins. Of course, that would require you to make an effort in between games. You don't get YouTube views for that.

Alan misunderstands (or rather, Stephen didn't explain well), that the bees use dances, with orientations related to the Sun's position, to give directions to novel locations. It's not a matter of memory.

Nitpicking aside, how do you give directions in Japan?

This begs the question, how do you give directions in Japan if the streets have no names?

comparing spousal abuse to belief in god.hmmmmmmmmm.
is this message in commercial format an attempt to reach out to religious people?
because if it is i am going to add this to the *fail channel.
that's like trying to give directions to a deaf person by using braille.this commercial/message was created for atheists or agnostics who are suspicious of religion and that makes the whole point of the video moot.the language and basic premise would be very clear to someone who is not religious and offensive to one who is.

yeah...that's how you want to start a dialogue,offend the person you are trying to reach.
that rates pretty high on the stupid meter.

"hey man.do you realize your god is vindictive,petty and a genocidal maniac and is based on superstition and mythology going all the way back to egypt,sumeria and the mesopotamia basin? and the bible itself is just a literary hybrid?an amalgamation of astrological and sacred geomantic parables held most dear by the "secret churches"?
you need to free yourself man from that superstitious mumbo jumbo.who cares if you have based your entire belief system on all that.you are wrong.i am right.here...watch this commercial".

uh............yeah.wars have been fought over less.good luck with that though.

It probably helps a great deal that the police officer was forced to give directions in a language that's not his primary language. The NLP techniques that he used are VERY basic, and were clearly memorized for the purpose of this little scam (and similar encounters). If he was actually hypnotizing the cop, it wouldn't have looked quite the same as what he does in the video.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by rasch187.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Stoner-Brad-Gives-Directions

they should get guillermo from jimmy kimmel to give directions.

>> ^my15minutes:
and it's not that fiscal conservatives are heartless, necessarily. most would simply want charity to be left in private hands, and can present equally sound reasons and priorities for it.

I agree, I don't think conservative citizens are heartless (for the most part), I just think the leadership of the Republican party is completely heartless -- and that people for some reason wind up backing a party that fights efforts to control carbon emissions, fights efforts to improve education, fights efforts to improve health care, and wants us to "compete" with third world nations for the lowest common wage.


for starters, it's more efficient. if you give directly to a charity, the state doesn't have to take a cut, to maintain their staff and expenses. so when i give to a charity, one of the first things i check is the percentage of all donations that is necessary for the upkeep of the charity itself.
http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/All.aspx?bureauID=9999#H
American Red Cross - Programs: 95% Fund Raising: 2% Administrative: 3%
promote!


Private organizations aren't always better: Medicare has similarly low overhead (3%), while Aetna has overhead costs approaching 25%.

For things like feeding, educating, and providing care for the less fortunate, why do we have to make it voluntary? Don't we have a collective responsibility to help?

I understand the intellectual arguments from conservatives, but they're usually based on an automatic assumption that private organizations are always better for every purpose, and that just isn't the case.

There's also an ethical calculus at work behind it that seems foreign to me. To me, paying more taxes to improve education, provide better health care, and fund research into alternative energy sounds like a great idea that will end up benefiting everyone. To conservatives, it's stealing their hard-earned cash to give to "people who didn't earn it".

The higher minded make into a conversation about whether we can trust the government to use our money for things like education, and not booze, hookers, and wars in Iraq, but that's a whole different problem -- one we can fix with ballot boxes, or failing that, torches and pitchforks.

...but I'm ranting again. Thanks for the promote.

^ oh, absolutely!

and there'll be plenty of Democrats, like yourself, who really are Democrats. who have very solid reasons why they are fiscal, as well as social, liberals. an honest belief that one of the roles of government is to help the less fortunate get a leg up. i think that's a fair assessment of how a true Democrat would see, that which others might deride as a 'welfare state'.

and it's not that fiscal conservatives are heartless, necessarily. most would simply want charity to be left in private hands, and can present equally sound reasons and priorities for it.

for starters, it's more efficient. if you give directly to a charity, the state doesn't have to take a cut, to maintain their staff and expenses. so when i give to a charity, one of the first things i check is the percentage of all donations that is necessary for the upkeep of the charity itself.

http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/All.aspx?bureauID=9999

American Red Cross - Programs: 95% Fund Raising: 2% Administrative: 3%

*promote!

sorry, dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Stoner-Brad-Gives-Directions

*discard

I think you're missing the point of my post. I was using homosexuality as an example of the difference between comments that stem debate, and comments that are personal attacks. A comment like "I disapprove of homosexuality because I consider it to be an unnatural relationship" is an example of a comment that could open up an interesting yet civil debate. (A perfect example is what you've done by sending this post to me.) However, the comment about homosexuals being AIDS-ridden and immoral is, as I pointed out, an impolite attack on someone who may be gay. Not all homosexuals have AIDS, and morality is subjective. Therefore a statement like that is an opinionated attack, which does not belong on a website such as Videosift. (Maybe Youtube, cause we all know the quality of the posts there . . .)

And so reverting this example back to religion, one can voice their thoughts on religion without saying anything insulting about the people involved. It's important to realize that in the end, even if you never come to agreement about the debate, you'll maintain mutual respect.

In reply to your comment:
“I strongly disagree with you on the subject of homosexuality. Scientists have observed many species of animals engaging in homosexual behavior. There is mounting evidence that a percentage of homosexuality can be adaptive for a species as a whole.

In light of these and other discoveries, it would seem that homosexuality is not a "choice" that a person makes. To condemn, or disdain, or otherwise disparage or discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation, is just like discriminating against a person because of the colour of their skin, or the place where they were born.

Somebody can choose to become Muslim, Christian or Buddhist. But you can not choose to be a man or a woman, black or white, asian or african. We are born this way.

It is my opinion that a person's choice to become a member of a mind-controlling cult is probably not a good one. I think you would agree. We would also agree that a person who chooses to begin practicing a 13-century Aztec religion which practices human sacrifice is also misled. It is "okay" to be "prejudiced" against human sacrifice. Indeed, animal sacrifice is also not generally observed in modern day. But does not your own bible give directions for sacrificing animals to your own god?

My point is, religion is a choice, and therefore open for debate. If you make a bad choice, I'm going to tell you- "don't kill your daughter, that god doesn't exist!"

But when people start to say that black people are lazy, that women are emotional, that homosexuals are immoral.... that is too much.

In reply to your comment:
“I think that some people aren't understanding what the issue is here. Those who are offended by such comments as the one in the video are not offended because the people making those comments are against religion. They are offended because the comments are attacks against them.

It's fine to say "I'm not to crazy about [religion] because it's just a load of supernatural mythology," or something like that. And there's nothing wrong with even saying you despise a certain religion, though from there you have to remember that those who believe in it believe in it strongly, so they'll have a strong reaction.

What's not all right is saying something akin to "Those who believe in this religion are idiots," or something along those lines. This is a personal attack on those people, and is really unsubstantiated.

Taking it to a different level, someone may not approve of homosexuality. They may say something along the lines of "I don't approve because I consider it a sin," or "I consider it to be an unnatural relationship," (though the second may be stretching it in terms of civility, depending on the company). But saying something like "Homosexuals are all AIDS-ridden and immoral," is an attack on the people, which is never right.

What should be done is not to censor anyone for saying they may have different views on any subject, but to hold them accountable for what they say. If their comments are hateful or derogatory, then do they really have place on a site that proclaims itself to be above such things?””