James O'Keefe - Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
208 replies, posted
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY[/media]
O'Keefe's response to media coverage of the video:
[video=youtube;s3jjFuqguws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3jjFuqguws[/video]
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51216672]Glad someone could take their time in an investigation to undercover even more bad blood from this election but I'd really appreciate if this guy didn't discredit good part of the presentation making it seem straight from a conspiracy theorist[/QUOTE]
That's because it fucking is
James O'Keefe is a manipulative lying scumbag and you should never trust any video he makes.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy[/url]
This is the most notable thing he was behind.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51216677]That's because it fucking is
James O'Keefe is a manipulative lying scumbag and you should never trust any video he makes.[/QUOTE]
why's that? you can please explain further?
[QUOTE=Numpers;51216722]why's that? you can please explain further?[/QUOTE]
I just edited my post. The 2009 ACORN controversy that led to ACORN being closed down over fraudulently and misleadingly edited footage was almost entirely James O'Keefe's doing.
Did you even watch the video?
All of the video evidence is provided. Why does it matter who publishes it? Chalkenge the evidence or the presentation but not the presenter.
Also King Tiger, you should get a mod to turn this into a Project Veritas megathread. There will be more releases this week.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51216842]Did you even watch the video?
All of the video evidence is provided. Why does it matter who publishes it? Chalkenge the evidence or the presentation but not the presenter.
Also King Tiger, you should get a mod to turn this into a Project Veritas megathread. There will be more releases this week.[/QUOTE]
You can't honestly be this stupid. This guy has a history of editing videos misleadingly to create evidence and a narrative that doesn't exist out of carefully chosen voice clips. I assume you went to college, didn't you? How can you not understand the concept of trustworthy and untrustworthy sources? You learn that shit in high school.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51216898]You can't honestly be this stupid. This guy has a history of editing videos misleadingly to create evidence and a narrative that doesn't exist out of carefully chosen voice clips. I assume you went to college, didn't you? How can you not understand the concept of trustworthy and untrustworthy sources? You learn that shit in high school.[/QUOTE]
thanks for correcting the record™
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting" - Pascall))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51216842]Did you even watch the video?
All of the video evidence is provided. Why does it matter who publishes it? Chalkenge the evidence or the presentation but not the presenter.
Also King Tiger, you should get a mod to turn this into a Project Veritas megathread. There will be more releases this week.[/QUOTE]
couldn't you say the same about the ACORN stuff as well? thats video evidence, but is heavily edited and taken out of context.
If you want to tear apart the video contents then go ahead. Forums are about open discussion.
What individual segments in the video do you feel are out of context or provide a gross misrepresentarion of what the people in the video actually mean?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51217181]If you want to tear apart the video contents then go ahead. Forums are about open discussion.
What individual segments in the video do you feel are out of context or provide a gross misrepresentarion of what the people in the video actually mean?[/QUOTE]
I'd like to hear this, I mean their positions are verifiable and their speech seems long and unedited to me, making it difficult to take parts out of context.
If there are counter points, I'd really like to hear them.
[QUOTE=Psyke89;51217204]I'd like to hear this, I mean their positions are verifiable and their speech seems long and unedited to me, making it difficult to take parts out of context.
If there are counter points, I'd really like to hear them.[/QUOTE]
James O'Keefe is a bad guy!
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting/Shit Thread" - rilez))[/highlight]
Just because Vice puts out one horribly exaggerated opinion piece doesn't mean I stop looking at further content they produce.
Likewise when CNN goes full bias mode during their interviews, I don't just ignore it completely.
Hell even for the Huffington post I will occasionally see if their blog posts get better from time to time.
Just counter the content at this point.
is this thread a fucking comedy skit
am i seriously seeing trump supporters, who will stop at nothing to talk about the way the media maliciously takes things out of context or edits footage to mislead the public, giving a pass to fucking james o'keefe
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51217288]is this thread a fucking comedy skit
am i seriously seeing trump supporters, who will stop at nothing to talk about the way the media maliciously takes things out of context or edits footage to mislead the public, giving a pass to fucking james o'keefe[/QUOTE]
Remember: Be critical of all media because Shillary Cunton is probably paying people to fake it all!!! unless it's supporting daddy then just slurp that shit down no questions
[highlight](User was banned for this post (""Shillary Cunton" memeshit" - rilez))[/highlight]
It's interesting that none of the critics in this thread have actually pointed out any problems in the video.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51217288]is this thread a fucking comedy skit
am i seriously seeing trump supporters, who will stop at nothing to talk about the way the media maliciously takes things out of context or edits footage to mislead the public, giving a pass to fucking james o'keefe[/QUOTE]
You are welcome to explain how the content of this video is taken out of context, just as I do with CNN shitting on Trump.
If its James O'Keefe, then finding flaws in the video should be easy, right?
[QUOTE=Dune3z;51216947]thanks for correcting the record™[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;51216954]this guys pointing out a dude who edits videos to mislead people, he must be a paid shill[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51217239]James O'Keefe is a bad guy![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51217329]Remember: Be critical of all media because Shillary Cunton is probably paying people to fake it all!!! unless it's supporting daddy then just slurp that shit down no questions[/QUOTE]
all of these are shitposts
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51217349]all of these are shitposts[/QUOTE]
My post was exactly true. I'm still waiting for all the manipulation and selective editing in this video to be pointed out.
It wouldn't matter if Hitler's ghost was the one who made it, just show me why it's fake/wrong.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51217349]all of these are shitposts[/QUOTE]
Be the better man and talk about the video instead. Call out flaws or problems with it, or discuss the implications of the video's content being true.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51217336]It's interesting that none of the critics in this thread have actually pointed out any problems in the video.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51217339]You are welcome to explain how the content of this video is taken out of context, just as I do with CNN shitting on Trump.
If its James O'Keefe, then finding flaws in the video should be easy, right?[/QUOTE]
if the point is that some footage might've been omitted in a video, then the one place where you wouldn't find this hypothetical footage is said video. i'm not sure why this needs to be explained at all
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
emphasis on hypothetical
The point of this video is to spark an investigation. The evidence in the video is suspicious enough to warrant one. The footage that is editted out could tell a different story as you suggest, but there's no way to know until someone looks into the claims.
You are dismissing the video entirely because it has the same fundamental problem as every video in existance. Even if you have the raw uncut footage, you can still argue that the video doesnt capture everything in the time it was recording.
Your argument is horrible.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51217413]if the point is that some footage might've been omitted in a video, then the one place where you wouldn't find this hypothetical footage is said video. i'm not sure why this needs to be explained at all
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
emphasis on hypothetical[/QUOTE]
What, you mean the part of the footage where the guy said "oh yeah, we didn't really organize the Chicago riot, it was all a big joke LOL"?
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
O'Keefe probably cut the part where they said "I don't really hire homeless/mentally ill people to shill at enemy rallies I just said that for some reason but it's not true don't worry."
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51217430]The point of this video is to spark an investigation. The evidence in the video is suspicious enough to warrant one. The footage that is editted out could tell a different story as you suggest, but there's no way to know until someone looks into the claims.
You are dismissing the video entirely because it has the same fundamental problem as every video in existance. Even if you have the raw uncut footage, you can still argue that the video doesnt capture everything in the time it was recording.
Your argument is horrible.[/QUOTE]
my argument is not that any investigations that come out of this are unwarranted, so the only horrible thing here is your reading comprehension
you can watch and learn as much as you want from this video. literally all i'm getting at is how strange it is that you people are getting so dismissive over the exact same criticism i've seen you use
The first part about the campaign, the DNC, and Super PAC's collaborating is entirely conjecture and is probably legal within the somewhat complicated and murky legalese that 501(c4) groups exist in. The title of the video (And O'Keefes primary claim) is sensationalist at best, false at worst.
The inciting violence aspects are a little more interesting though. It didn't seem that controversial to me to pay people to go to rallies and do fairly innocuous shit and wait for a Trump supporter to overreact, but the admission that they get homeless people and call up unions to do is is definitely pretty questionable. The part with the 69 year old woman seems selectively edited based on O'Keefes history and I think I'm excused for not buying it.
The woman on oxygen is a fair criticism.
What bothers me is that people keep saying Trump supporters are violent and yet DNC plants keep poking them with a stick. When they've had enough and lash out the media points the finger at Trump or generalizes that all of his supporters are belligerent hillbillies or psychopaths.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51217622]The woman on oxygen is a fair criticism.
What bothers me is that people keep saying Trump supporters are violent and yet DNC plants keep poking them with a stick. When they've had enough and lash out the media points the finger at Trump or generalizes that all of his supporters are belligerent hillbillies or psychopaths.[/QUOTE]
Because being an asshole at a rally is okay, it's significantly less okay to beat someone for being an asshole.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51217622]The woman on oxygen is a fair criticism.
What bothers me is that people keep saying Trump supporters are violent and yet DNC plants keep poking them with a stick. When they've had enough and lash out the media points the finger at Trump or generalizes that all of his supporters are belligerent hillbillies or psychopaths.[/QUOTE]
Violence is not a justifiable reaction to anything except other violence.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51217336]It's interesting that none of the critics in this thread have actually pointed out any problems in the video.[/QUOTE]
That's Facepunch for you.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NY2NU9M.jpg[/img]
ofc there's benghazi in there
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;51217675]That's Facepunch for you.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NY2NU9M.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Because this isn't biased at all either... trump is not a molehill. Neither is Clinton mind you, there should just be a couple mountain ranges for Hillary and a Volcano or two for Trump.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.