Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "The Dodo"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buecherdrache1 Regarding, "Instead I get the feeling you didn't want to answer them." I promise you that I had trouble understanding the points you were trying to make. Looking ahead at your writing it is again really tough for me to understand and address properly. Your statements are like answers to questions I don't ask and your questions are just bad.
Regarding, "The press wasn't there, because nor was Biden shown to hold a speech, answer a question or anything like that, which always happens when big press is there." Wait... is this something you think the press should be covering? If so why don't they cover it when I do it? Was I asking why the press wasn't there or something? Because I didn't which makes your meaning tough to get.
Regarding, "You don't need to answer, just please take this into consideration." Who cares how the information was gotten to the dodo. Was this literally the first time the dodo every got this type of info on politician and an animal? Because if they have been political in the past I've never seen it and I was subscribed for a long time. So why is this the first time we have every gotten this type of political PR? And if trump and company did it would the dodo have covered it for him? And given the orange clown an undeserved bump? Based on nothing more than political theater?
Regarding, "It might be a cultural difference, because where I am from private lifes of politicians are, well, private." LMFAO. It should be and can be. The only reason that this becomes public is if team BIDEN WANTS IT TO BE.
Regarding, "So why is everything a political person does, aimed to influence the public in your opinion?" Not everything is. Take the legalized bribes they take. That is meant to be hidden and not affect you. But this... adopting a puppy. Of course they want that to affect you. That's why they are telling you about this and not the dirty money they are taking.
If this wasn't meant to influence my opinion of biden I wouldn't be hearing about. That's how you know it wasn't meant to influence you. This on the other hand is designed to make you like him.
Regarding, "Especially on a channel that is only about animal rescue?" I was a subscriber for a long time before now. It was only about animal rescue. Now they have chosen to be political. I hope it kills their brand. It should. Sadly it likely won't because people are sheep.
Regarding, "Like if Trump was shown on a channel about golfing how he is playing golf, no press, no questions, just him playing, I would just assume he is playing golf without any deeper meaning." Do they only choose to show trump playing? And not any other politicians at all? If they did would you then think it maybe has deeper meaning? Fun fact: first politician I've ever seen here. I guess a conservative, or libertarian, and nazi has never done so as well. And if a nazi adopted a dog should the dodo cover it? And give them good PR the way they are for Biden? (I am not comparing or equating hitler to biden. Please do not suggest I am.)
Regarding, "So what is different for you about this video?" Let's keep this simple.
Propaganda is defined as information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Is this video information? Check.
Is this video biased? I've never seen them promote another politician ever and have zero reason to think they would have given trump this type of good PR while he was in office if they had the chance. Biased? Check.
"used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view" Used to promote, publicize and make you feel happy good thoughts about a particular politician and POTUS elect.
How exactly doesn't this fit the textbook definition of propaganda? Or do you just not mind propaganda?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Avery Benson Regarding, "I am sorry that I made you upset for unknown reasons" I literally just got done telling you exactly what makes me upset. Stupid crap like this where you pretend to not understand what my problems are and then in the next breathe contradict yourself.
Regarding, "You make valid points" If only this was the only thing you were saying.
Regarding, "in my opinion it is offensive the way you are saying it." Am I the only one being offensive? And crass?
Whether you like it or not we are talking about politics because this is political. That means we are talking about things like war, people without health care, education, mass incarceration, kids in cages, and more. These are things that should make your blood boil while you act like I have no reason to care about the topics of which I'm speaking.
And I've asked you this but you never bothered to answer but am I the only one guilty of this to you? And if not why I am I the only one you are taking issue with?
Regarding, "I sincerely do not think this is a propaganda" Care to offer anything of substance? I broke down how it fits every category of the definition of the word. You offer what exactly?
Regarding, "Thank you for considering that not everyone has the same opinion." I know people don't share my opinion. But I can only respect your opinion if you bother to back it up with something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@poketay Regarding, "this was taken two years ago" I have zero clue why people bring this up like it's an innate point or something. It shows nothing. Other than the fact that biden team was planning a presidential run a couple years when they CERTAINLY were. Any sort of legit presidential run by people like biden is planned years in advance.
Regarding, "This wasn’t a political propaganda scheme" Of course it was.
Regarding, "he just wanted to adopt Major." If that is the only thing he wanted why is the dodo covering this? I've adopted and I wasn't doing it for PR. You can tell, in part, because it didn't land on the dodo.
Regarding, "He came with no security guards, not even his wife, on an Easter Sunday." Let's say you were a politician and hypothetically wanted the good PR. You would also want it to not look like it's for PR and would act accordingly. As for "on an Easter Sunday" you cite this like it's evidence it's not pandering. It actually makes it look MORE like pandering. Because not only are you pandering to dog lovers but you are pandering to the religious.
Regarding, "He actually didn’t really want to take pictures," Do you believe everything he says? This is the same guy who lie about working in civil rights. This is the same guy who lied about being arrested with mandela. This is the same guy who lies about his record. Do you ever think he might be lying about this? Seeing as how he lies about far more important things?
Regarding, "The only reason why it’s coming out now is because he wasn’t in the political spotlight two years ago, so nobody cared." Wait... so people only care now because he's in the "political spotlight." Thanks for admitting that this political.
Regarding, "Of course, when the first EVER shelter dog gets to be in the White House, a lot of people are going to care and the media is going to report it." If trump, or any other politician (fun fact before you answer, being a nazi is a political ideology) engages in this type of blatant pandering should they all be covered like this? If mcconnell does the same thing tomorrow should that POS also get this same type of coverage from the dodo serving to increase his popularity and make people like him more than they should? One more thing to add the dodo is not "the media" or the news like you make it seem.
1
-
1
-
@poketay Regarding, "If any huge/well-known political figure adopts a dog, it’s going to be covered by media outlets." Should it? Is that really news worthy? Do you want to act like this isn't treated differently depending on the politician, the outlet, and their "team?"
The dodo are not the "news." If there is a person or outlet that should be reporting this it shouldn't be them.
Regarding, "I don’t understand why adopting a dog would be considered political though." Literally EVERYTHING having to do with a politician is political.
Regarding, "Why is it political ONLY when Joe Biden adopts a dog?" Because he's a politician. And it is political for all other politicians because they are politicians.
Regarding, "Millions of people adopt, are those considered to be political and PR stunts as well?" Some of them certainly are. Let's say you are Jeffrey Epstein and not dead. One way you might want to make people think you aren't the monster that you are might be by adopting a puppy and getting the dodo to cover it.
Should they cover it? Nope. Because Jeff is a monster. As for if the dodo should be covering this for any politician the answer should always be no. Whether you agree with their politics or not. That is what the principled position should be. That is what not being political looks like. Not being political is choosing to NEVER use your platform to give good pr and propaganda like this.
Regarding, "This is only getting press recently because he’s running for President." Let's say you aren't one of the media darlings. Do they all get covered? Or do they pick and choose?
Regarding, "it’s still the same act." Whose doing it matters.
Regarding, "He contacted us privately about wanting to foster a dog and then he eventually ended up adopting him after he fit perfectly into his family and got along great with his other dog." Neat.
Regarding, "The Dodo is covering it because ..." Have there never been any heartfelt stories of conservatives adopting? If so why have I never heard them here? Why is this literally the first time I've seen them cover any politician? Do you support Biden politically? What if you didn't? Do you still think it would be ok to give this type of PR for trump while he was in office if it were possible?
Regarding, "If this was a PR stunt, he would’ve had cameras and media coverage at the time of the adoption." Is that really all you think it takes for something to not be a PR stunt? If this wasn't a PR stunt I wouldn't be hearing about it PERIOD.
Regarding, "This is only getting press recently because he’s running for President." Are you trying to prove my point that this is political?
Regarding, "If he wasn’t running then I doubt the media would care." You again keep lumping "the media" with "the dodo." Is there really no distinction between the two in your mind?
Regarding, "The Dodo only really covers special or unique adoption stories, otherwise this channel would be overrun with millions of random adoptions." Which is just fine until they use their platform to give PR for a politician. And I'd prefer to hear about a random adoption by a person who isn't using the dog as a political prop and for political gain. I know you think Joe would never do such a thing. But what if it wasn't someone like him? As if he already doesn't have a long history of telling lies for political gain? But let's say you thought they might just be doing it for PR? Should it still be covered like you think it should be saint biden?
Regarding, "Why would he lie about not wanting to take pictures because he needed to be back with his family on Easter?" Why would he lie about being arrested with Mandela when it's easily checked and proven false? Why would he lie about working in civil rights again in 2019 even after he went on the record in 1988 (i think, it was after his first failed presidential run) saying that he absolutely hadn't? Because politics and because people are dupes who believe far more than they should.
Regarding, "we all convinced him." LMFAO. Even if he didn't get the photo op he certainly wanted and played hard to get about he still would likely get to have people tell everyone about biden adopted a puppy. And then, after telling them the story of our hero there would certainly be many that would come to conclusions such as, "we can all agree that this was a wonderful thing for him to do." No matter the rest of their actions in their life like the OP has. Or, "It proves once again that Joe Biden has a heart of gold." Let's say hypothetically that this was propaganda meant to make people like biden, those are the types of things they might say right? Don't be afraid to think about this from the perspective of a person you DON'T already like.
Regarding, "Him adopting a dog is not political." You are the same person who also said, "This is only getting press recently because he’s running for President." are you not? If it were actually not political I'd be more inclined to agree if I weren't hearing about it here.
Regarding, "If Trump or any other big politician adopts an animal from a shelter, media outlets are going to cover it." Are you sure? All the exact same media outlets that covered this? Or maybe you are talking about media outlets like fox, the daily beast, alex jones and other propaganda networks. Are you really sure the dodo would cover it? And if not I again ask why I've literally never heard another story on the dodo involving a politician.
Regarding, "You keep saying it like it’s a fact, which it isn’t." Let's say you shared my opinion that this was only done for PR? What then? Do you make any distinction? And if so how do you explain the hypocrisy? Maybe it would be better to have a principle position before having to make the judgement call if it's PR or if it's not. Maybe it would be best to just not cover any politician?
Regarding, "There are many media outlets covering the story, not just The Dodo," Maybe we shouldn't lump them all together into the same pile shall we? Maybe we should make some distinctions between who should be getting political and who shouldn't? The dodo is absolutely a place that should NOT be political. Period. They shouldn't be using their platform to give that type of bump to ANYONE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@-king-6481 Regarding, "the dodo does these videos to support adoption and to help save animals" Which is a great cause when they aren't using the platform to give a politicians political PR. It's a terrible thing when they use their platform to give political propaganda such as this.
Regarding, "they’ve had famous people before" They have. Covering "famous people" isn't a problem. Covering politicians is. I don't care about them covering famous people. I care about them covering politicians. It's an important distinction you seem to be willfully ignoring.
Regarding, "because he’s *famous*." Has a famous politician never tried this PR before? If not why is this the first time the dodo has used their platform to give good PR for a politician? Jeffrey Epstein is "famous." Bill Cosby is "famous." If they were alive and well and adopting should the dodo use their platform to give "famous" people like them good PR?
Regarding, "earlier you kept saying that someone else’s comments and questions were hard to understand" I did.
Regarding, "i don’t see how, i read through them and they seemed just fine." Good for you. Still you offer no actual evidence or anything of actual substance here.
Regarding, "you might think this is propaganda," It literally checks ever box of the definition of the word.
Regarding, "you might think this is propaganda, and as there might be some public favor, that being the dog lovers, this is not propaganda." I have no clue what point you are trying to make. Someone else might gather your meaning but I honestly can't. I welcome you to try and clarify your meaning. Why exactly isn't it propaganda? How doesn't it fit the definition that we all use?
Regarding, "propaganda being “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature" It's biased because if trump were doing the exact same thing the dodo wouldn't be using their platform to cover it the way they did for biden. It would be covered... but by other networks engaging in propaganda. And you can tell it's propaganda because they are the same places that aren't covering this story about biden because BIAS. If this information isn't biased why have I never seen another politician of any kind on the dodo in the past? Was there never another story about a politician adopting a dog before this?
Regarding, " there’s nothing biased about it, except that he’s democratic, but that’s not biased." Thanks for this nonsense. It really brings nothing to the conversation. It's just like you are trying to intentionally confuse and conflate things by saying even what you think is nonsense in your own sentence. "there’s nothing biased about it.... but that’s not biased." Brilliant. Let's say the dodo would only do this type of story for a democrat? But not a republican or trump? That would be bias right? Well do you have any evidence that they would do this for trump or someone like him? Do you have evidence showing their decision wasn't made from a position of bias?
Regarding, "he is not trying to promote a political cause." Wait... that guy who just got done running for president doesn't support a particular political cause? Or political philosophy? Oh right... he obviously does. That's why he ran. To support his political cause and political philosophy.
Regarding, "You also kept bringing up how you don’t see Trump on here" I keep bringing up how I've never seen another politician of any political ilk here before. And I loved it. I loved that this was one of the last places I could go and not have political propaganda shoved down my throat. But those days are now gone.
Regarding, "trump does not have a dog. simple as that." I envy people who think everything is so simple. It must be nice. But let's say he was hypothetically adopting a dog tomorrow. Should the dodo cover it? And give the orange clown and terrible person good PR for it? Is that really how they should use their platform?
Regarding, "maybe you could try to not start every single sentence with “regarding” idk just a thought, makes everything you say boring to read" Nah. I like that people know exactly what I'm addressing and don't care if you think I'm boring. I'm not writing to entertain. Maybe you could try it for me? And specifically target the many direct questions I've asked you in the same manner that I have answered all of your questions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theBravoTwins. Regarding, "OK!" OK!
Regarding, "So this entire comment section is You yelling at people" For the people wondering and asking why I tend to start points by using "regarding," I do it because I like it when people know EXACTLY who and what I'm addressing. You don't even bother to start your post by directing it at anyone but I'm going to address this as if you are talking to me.
Regarding, "You yelling at people" What exactly do you mean by yelling? I thought that typing in all caps is yelling online. I may type the occasional word or phrase in all caps to try and emphasize my point but I never "yell." Or at least my understanding of what that means in this context. You aren't perchance just being a hypocrite are you? And criticizing me for having the audacity to ask people questions and not just agreeing with everything they say in the exact same manner you are doing of me?
Regarding, "this entire comment section is You yelling at people" This simply is not true. This comment section is also made up of people like yourself who are "yelling" at me. This comment section also includes me asking lots and lots and lots of questions. And they have almost exclusively been ignored. It also includes people displaying the after affects of effective propaganda. The entire comment section is not just me "yelling" at people.
Regarding, "u have no factual evidence" I'm not going to lie this is actually quite funny coming from the person who started their post with easily provable BS.
Regarding, "whether if this is propaganda or not" I literally brought out the definition of the word and walked everyone though how this exactly fits that definition. You are the one not bringing evidence or facts. Maybe your time would be better spent telling me and everyone how this doesn't fit the definition of the word propaganda?
Regarding, "have u noticed that the date was MARCH 28 2018!" I have. Have you noticed that I've addressed this already?
Regarding, "THIS IS YEARS AGO WAY BEFORE THE ELECTION!" I can tell you really think you have a good point because you wrote it in all caps and put an exclamation mark at the end of it but I fail to understand why you think this is such a good point. You just stating this like it's a gotcha moment, drop you mic and walk away. It's not. It's evidence of nothing. In fact... if you are claiming that this information is only being talked about because of biden's presidential run you are only proving my point that this IS POLITICAL. If it wasn't political and had nothing to do with politics we should have been hearing about this years ago when he wasn't in office (planning a presidential run and a go at another spot in office but whatever).
Regarding, "whether we believe in someone or not, let’s be positive" Wait... it doesn't matter if we believe them or not? It doesn't matter if they are just pandering or not? Do you really not care if you are being manipulated?
Regarding, "and not hypocritical," It feels like you are calling me a hypocrite but not bothering to back it up with anything of substance. Very hypocritical of you mr. "u have no factual evidence."
Regarding, "This is a happy story
whether it’s for show or not" To be clear you think that even if this was done for the sole purpose of political gain and that even if the puppy is being used as a prop for nothing more than political propaganda it doesn't matter? And that makes sense to you?
1
-
1
-
@carolynl3933 Regarding, "Has no one noticed that Clint Holmes is a troll?" I find this funny coming from a person whose comment has nothing of value to offer.
Regarding, "Look at how many people they managed to successfully agitate." And still they can't be bothered to answer simple questions directed at them. I'd like to think that if they are agitated it's only because on some level they realize they don't have good answers to the areas they are being pressed.
Regarding, "Just ignore people like these" Yes, just ignore people who ask you questions. Just ignore people who don't share the same views as you. Just shut off your brain and refuse to engage anyone outside of your bubble. Whatever you do DO NOT try to justify the beliefs you hold. And yes, this is sarcasm.
Regarding, "not like you can win any argument anyway" People seem to care too much about "winning" in my opinion. How about debate for the sake of debate? Because what we think matters? Is that never enough for you?
Regarding, "“Regarding” gibberish" You must be remarkably unoriginal to go here for an insult.
Regarding, "Yes Clint go ahead and respond with the same starting phrase again" I will. Thank you. And thanks for your approval. It means everything to me. /s
Regarding, "you honestly really need a life" This is what you say when you have nothing of value to offer. Let's say you thought this was propaganda? And you found it on a channel that you loved? And you loved the channel in the past in part because, like you have said over and over, it was one of the last places on earth you felt you go and not be bombarded with propaganda? And you just got to enjoy puppy videos? And you love puppies because duh? But then you honestly get what you think is propaganda? In a world that you think is already filled with too much propaganda? Let's say all that were true, is my reaction really so unreasonable?
Or are you just trying to minimize the points I'm making without actually bothering to say anything of value?
1
-
1
-
@readthecomic7946 Regarding, "This video was taken WAY back in 2018." LMFAO. Kinda. It was taken in 2018. But the notion that 2018 is like the distant past or a long lost bygone era like you are framing is asinine.
Regarding, "This was BEFORE he announced that he was running for president." Yup. Do you want to act like a presidential run only begins the day they announce? That major campaigns like this aren't planned meticulously years in advance?
Regarding, "How would this be propaganda if it was taken so long ago?" Let's start with what the word "propaganda" describes. The "propaganda" is this video. It wasn't created long ago. It was only recently posted.
Regarding, "your point regarding them not promoting trump" My point is actually far more broad and that I've never seen them promote ANY politician before this.
Regarding, "Trump, never adopted a dog, so how exactly would they promote him?" They have never used this platform to promote ANY politician to be the best of my knowledge. Even if they did it really proves nothing. Look again at the definition of propaganda. It doesn't require that information be biased to be called propaganda. It's more of a red flag and warning that it's propaganda. It's not required in all cases. If it were the definition would instead be, "Propaganda is defined as information, OF* a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
Regarding, "This channel is all about animals and them finding their forever homes" I know. Which makes it a perfect place for political propaganda. It is a perfect place to gain the sympathy of dupes who predictably let down their guard and shut off their brain when a puppy is around because puppies are adorable.
Regarding, "Trump never took the time to do that." If he did do you think they would cover this? Do you think they should cover it? In the same manner they have for biden with the predictable response of making people like the orange clown more than they should? Should the dodo be using their platform to predictably give good PR for any politician?
Let me ask you a few more questions that maybe you can answer while others won't...
Let's say you KNEW it was PR. Biden straight up told you so. That he doesn't care about the dog but they wanted to adopt them for a good photo op and good publicity. He even knew of a friend at the dodo (this is all hypothetical and is not meant to accurately portray what I think happened) that was going to cover it for him. They had it all planned out to even try and make it look as "normal" as possible. It can't look planned or the effect isn't as good. So you know all this but it's not like you have it on tape or something. It was just what you yourself heard joe biden say because reasons.
Can you agree that if all this were true you wouldn't want the dodo to cover it? And give him exactly what he wanted? Or do you want to claim as others have that it wouldn't matter. And that it would still be a feel good story?
Let's assume you wouldn't think it would good to give him the PR and propaganda he wanted. How do you justify that belief but still hold the belief that this is just fine? What exactly is the difference between the two? Wouldn't it maybe be best to just be of the principled belief that it has no business here regardless? Because they are politicians and literally everything they do is political? Wouldn't it be better to not leave it up to individual judgement? And just leave politics out of it completely?
1