@notarobt

Ok... so after watching your clip... i have to ask. You seriously watched that and went... Oh yeah!... thats legit!... Really?

Next link... Alex Jones?... yeah... I think clinton is awful... but seriously?

This screams desperation.

Yeah, it just seemed like a legit video to me, but I never really check into that kind of thing, I leave that to the more experienced sifters. I thought maybe they posted their own video or something and that was the reason. Just curious is all. Thanks for your time and hope you have a wonderful night!

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.

As someone who once made a business(not legit) of buying and selling cars on the down low, id say make sure the name on the title matches the seller. If not be suspicious.

Also i don't think this video is all that serious and maybe see it as comedyish.

Congratulations! Your comment on Redacted Tonight: NY Primary Wasn't Legit (Clinton VS Sander has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 5 Badge!

Your video, Redacted Tonight: NY Primary Wasn't Legit (Clinton VS Sander, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm from Mississippi and can confirm his accent as legit.

I find a lot of these complaints to be pretty silly. Particularly the roles of 40+ years ago, like John Wayne as Genghis Khan, etc.

And The Last Samurai is awesome. OK, Tom Cruise (white guy) is the main character -- because he is a lens through which an American audience can reflect on the respect that he gains for the real (Japanese) samurai. All the roles that the script/plot dictates should be played by Japanese people are. I'd even argue that the title doesn't refer to Tom Cruise's Nathan Algren, but rather to the whole group of samurai (notice how the word can be plural or singular) led by Ken Watanabe's Katsumoto.

There are some (plenty of?) legit gripes about "whitewashing" movies, but accusing movies like the The Last Samurai of it (when they are actually doing things exactly right and making a movie FULL of non-white roles played by non-white people) seems counterproductive to the argument...

No, I don't think there's a single jump scare in the film -- it's unnerving and tense in a way that so few horror films manage to achieve, but never in a cheap "I know something is going to pop up and say boo" type of way. It's legit.

I don't see it. In small doses you'll really only get the stimulant effect and not so much the hallucinogenic effect. May as well get a legit(ish) prescription for adderall.

Shouldn't there be a circle outside the fundamentalist circle? I'd think the way she's talking she's outside that circle too. The sheer numbers in all the discussed circles is certainly something to be weary of, and I agree the issue needs to be addressed more by those outside the fundamentalist circle.

The same circles can be applied to Christians as well. The inner circle includes people like that guy who killed those at the Planned Parenthood. The next Islamist circle would be mostly the Tea Party type Christians, those that want to force one type of Christian view on others via political action. The Fundamentalist include fundamentalist Christians, those that think gay marriage is a sin and should be outlawed. Now beyond that inner circle, most of Christianity has outgrown it's radical violent past... though their support of the death penalty and stand your ground and murder somebody for stealing your TV sort of suggests they haven't... They criticize Muslim support for chopping off hands of thieves as barbaric, but believe in stand your ground for theft... And those in the fundamentalist circle and further to the center are the ones who do all the speaking for Christianity. There was no outpouring from Christians after the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack about how he doesn't represent Christianity. There is no mass outpouring from the majority of Christians who have no issue with gay marriage to stand up for those who sin differently than them, instead letting the fundamentalist rule the show and present their views as the dominant Christian view, which appears to be that it is worth judging homosexuality as a far worse sin than the ones that they committing... The same arguments she's making for the moderate Muslims to be standing up against fundamentalist to Jihadist Muslims should be applied to Christians as well... no, they radicalized Christians generally aren't as big a threat in terms of violence, but the growing public image of Christians as being bigoted, self-righteous, feeling repressed demigods is a real problem for Christianity as well, and is in large part to blame for its shrinking numbers.

Violence and war against Islam though helps grow the radical elements. As much as Christians love to play the "help help we're being opposed" card, Muslims are increasingly more able to play that card with legit purpose. Trump's call to stop them all from even visiting the US, to register all US Muslims into a database and track them is an open invitation to radicalize more, to move more of them from moderate to fundamentalist and to move fundamentalist towards jihadist... and if it was just one radical idiot like Trump that would be one thing, but he has a huge swath of support, which makes it again easier to radicalize more as they can point out that their faith is under a real and legit attack... which proves their faith is the one true faith as the enemy is working so hard to attack it... this is an argument made by Christians all the time with the we are being oppressed cries, that prove that Christianity is the one true faith, because the devil is working so hard to push Christianity down, yet they don't recognize their attempts to push Islam down proves the exact same point to the Muslims...

I think they all show that religion does far more harm than good.

^ There appears to be a lot of sand in my vagina today! Sorry if that came across as overly harsh.

It would appear arguing with SJW trolls on youtube is harmful to ones soul.

Pretty sure I'm to some extent projecting my frustration with other similar styles of movement here. Though my underlying concern about such propaganda still stands I think. (& PETA can still more or less fuck off)


@iaui I have absolutely nothing against you and none of my vitriol was at all directed towards yourself. This was a perfectly legit thing to be sifting and I would hate for you to take anything I've said as an attack on yourself.

I'm not even sure it was really an attack on this specific movement, outside the insidious nature of it's propaganda.

It just left a bitter taste and much like I find myself having to stand up for people I deeply dislike and disagree with (re: freedom of expression). I also find myself having to take people to task even though I might like them or agree with the underlying premise of their position (a bad argument is a bad argument).

I'm now going to go away and watch frolicking kittens until I stop feeling like such a touchy twat...

Not sure about the Doc Brown stuff, though it could make sense, though that idea has plot holes itself, but the fact that the hoverboards were in a different time line than our is fully legit. *promote

If anyone else is living outside the US in a place where they can't get this via legit broadcast (or in the US with a torrent friendly VPN) this might save you a few seconds of searching:

Oops, how did this get here?!

I think it's totally legit and that they all responded that way because of the context. With a camera in your face out of nowhere and this odd choice, the chocolate bar has no strings attached; you can just take it and go. Their feeling is probably thinking, "They must be filming and offering silver bar for some reason and some unknown consequences will come from choosing that ." Also, it may be a subconscious thing like "If I choose the silver they won't let me keep it and then I won't get the free chocolate bar."

I'm sure the results would be very different in a different context or perhaps even if the choice was just presented differently.

But aside from all that, what an annoying fucking video. I detest that they offer no explanation or elaboration on what they're doing or what they think is happening with the people and there's no conclusion to sum up the results and the reason for the results, etc. Even a simple "I don't know why they're not choosing the silver," would suffice, but his only commentary or narration or summation for the whole experiment is an occasional look into the camera. And then it just ends?

Stupid. I want to down-vote his face.