• Project Veritas Action: Rigging the Election Part 3 - Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Involvement
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tudd;51259440]Look I get you are not going to watch the video. But when Rob Creamer says, "In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground. Don't repeat that to anybody." There is no edit/jump cuts. It is one statement you can look at and then his position to know it points at collusion that would be illegal. So unless there is some audio/visual manipulation to somehow to account for, you still have these statements.[/QUOTE] There is always a greater context, and this is [U]exactly[/U] what we have been telling you O'Keefe plays on. For the entire thread, we have explained this point to you. He LIVES on this shit. O'Keefe is telling you what happened around this statement, and you shouldn't trust him. Is that statement damning? Seems that way at face value. But without the source footage to understand the context of that conversation, such as precisely when it occurred and why, appearance of guilt is not the same as concrete proof of guilt. If O'Keefe has evidence of criminal actions by the Hillary campaign, he defeats his own message if he doesn't release the full tapes, either publicly or to investigative authorities. This is non-negotiable.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254067]But now the debate is if that invalidates the videos completely.[/QUOTE] How the fuck wouldn't it
[QUOTE=Tudd;51259440]But when Rob Creamer says, "In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground. Don't repeat that to anybody." There is no edit/jump cuts.[/QUOTE] Wow! That would be really damning then if he released the full footage, Hillary's campaign would be completely destroyed! So why won't he release the full footage then? What does he have to lose? Just because you can't imagine the context where that statement doesn't mean what it appears to mean, doesn't mean that context doesn't exist. And if he was saying exactly what it looks like, then O'Keefe has NO reason not to release the full, unedited footage. So... why doesn't he?
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259468]A. Primarily, you don't trust O'Keefe. That is, obviously, your right. But you also won't give it a chance, look at it critically and then decide which parts might be true and which parts are out of context. B. It doesn't agree with your politics. Everyone does this.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259468] The left will attack your character, call you a racist, liar or bigot and expects that's enough to discredit you. [/QUOTE] I mean. The dude did lie. I don't think calling him a liar is necessarily inaccurate, and generally for my personal wellbeing I don't follow the advice of people I know have lied to me. I don't call O'Keefe a liar who's videos are untrustworthy because I'm a leftist, I say it because he is an actual liar who has fraudulently edited videos in the past. [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] I think you Dave_Parker are being disingenuous as shit, between "It doesn't agree with your politics" and "Facepunch doesn't like O'Keefe." as if you and Tudd aren't totally being played for a fool by this con artist purely because it aligns with your politics.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259468]Primarily, you don't trust O'Keefe. That is, obviously, your right. But you also won't give it a chance, look at it critically and then decide which parts might be true and which parts are out of context.[/QUOTE] "Here, look at this Photoshop and take it even kind of seriously." Why should I give a fraud's "proof" an inch of credibility when he is known specifically for using clever editing tricks to create misleading videos? I'll give him a chance when he releases the unedited video, where it doesn't have his editorial bias. How many times do I have to repeat this before you get this into your head? [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;51259468]It doesn't agree with your politics. Everyone does this.[/QUOTE] You know nothing about my politics. Don't even start this line of distracting rhetoric. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. O'Keefe won't give up the evidence, so his claims can be dismissed on the spot. If O'Keefe wants to fix this, he has a really simple solution right in front of him.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51259440]Look I get you are not going to watch the video. But when Rob Creamer says, "In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground. Don't repeat that to anybody." There is no edit/jump cuts. It is one statement you can look at and then his position to know it points at collusion that would be illegal. So unless there is some audio/visual manipulation to somehow to account for, you still have these statements. [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] [/QUOTE] He doesn't say "Hillary Clinton wanted people dressed up as Donald duck harassing people at Trump rallies to incite violence" though. That uncut statement does not say what he means by "ducks on the ground". OUTSIDE OF THE ASSUMED CONTEXT that statment has no meaning, and since O'Keefe is a bullshit artist who spins his own context, truth be damned, I'm hardly convinced.
"I take nothing at face value " Takes everything a red handed liar says at face value This can't be real right?
Wow, the usual suspects denying long full motion video clips. Not surprised, You guys must shit your pants with these two candidates at the podium. It's only understandable that delusions sets in, But for real. How can he fake full conversations, why did Scott foval get fired and Bob cramer resign? How can you even discuss this shit? Even the most advanced video editing con artist can't fake these faces and lifes involved in these videos?
[QUOTE=dannass;51260828]Wow, the usual suspects denying long full motion video clips. Not surprised, You guys must shit your pants with these two candidates at the podium. It's only understandable that delusions sets in, But for real. How can he fake full conversations, why did Scott foval get fired and Bob cramer resign? How can you even discuss this shit? Even the most advanced video editing con artist can't fake these faces and lifes involved in these videos?[/QUOTE] it's almost as if you didn't read any posts in the thread
Look at me calling out the ignorance portrayed in this thread and instantly I support trump. I don't support any of those fuckheads.
[QUOTE=dannass;51260860]Look at me calling out the ignorance portrayed in this thread and instantly I support trump. I don't support any of those fuckheads.[/QUOTE] you didn't even read my post :v:
[QUOTE=dannass;51260860]Look at me calling out the ignorance portrayed in this thread and instantly I support trump. I don't support any of those fuckheads.[/QUOTE] The consequences of Hilary being locked up right now even after as many investigations as she's had into her found nothing, would be the world dealing with a Trump presidency. That's why he gets brought up. If she's guilty I want her to face the music but for her to do that now, we face the tune of Trump which we shouldn't tolerate.
[QUOTE=Naught;51260884]you didn't even read my post :v:[/QUOTE] Don't come here with that bullshit. Of course I read the thread, I wouldn't point out the blatant hypocrisy and denial otherwise. This undertone of pretentiousness by being an ignoramus is sickening.
[QUOTE=dannass;51260914]Don't come here with that bullshit. Of course I read the thread, I wouldn't point out the blatant hypocrisy and denial otherwise. This undertone of pretentiousness by being an ignoramus is sickening.[/QUOTE] If you read through the thread, you would have seen posts talking about exactly what you talked about. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51259399] Being fired isn't a damning sign of guilt. When I worked for the call center in town it was written into my employment contract that if I was arrested for any reason and that information was published, I could expect to be fired on the spot as the company covered their ass and distanced themselves from even the [I]appearance[/I] of wrongdoing. Never mind if I wasn't charged with anything, if cuffs went on my wrist and work heard about it my job was forfeit. It'd be pretty fucking astounding if a little shitshop of a call center in a Canadian town had higher standards for brand protection than people involved in the Democratic race for the US presidency. CYA firings happen all the time, whether or not the person is actually guilty. I haven't even watched the video because, as I stated, O'Keefe's words are absolutely worthless to me. He has no credibility at all with me. If the Democratic party has committed illegal acts they should be held accountable, but until O'Keefe releases the unedited tapes to an unbiased party, or at least one without a documented history of fraud, it's worthless. It's fruit of the poisoned tree and it is below my consideration. When the raw footage comes out, then we can have an actual discussion about what these statements really meant in the mind of their speaker. If the raw footage proves that the Hillary campaign has been up to illegal collusion, that's the time to charge them and begin the proper justice process. If O'Keefe won't release the raw footage when he has the opportunity to cripple Hillary's momentum with it, it can be assumed to not be worth the bandwidth. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51260887]The consequences of Hilary being locked up right now even after as many investigations as she's had into her found nothing, would be the world dealing with a Trump presidency. That's why he gets brought up. If she's guilty I want her to face the music but for her to do that now, we face the tune of Trump which we shouldn't tolerate.[/QUOTE] I can understand that. Innocent until proven guilty by the supreme court. But you can't deny that her friend who had been visiting her over 300 times admitting her doing this really doesn't come as a shock. Also that the same guy providing the costumes is the one admitting voter fraud. It ties a little too well together for it to be bullshit. Especially when the guys resign and gets fired after the media attention. [editline]26th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Naught;51260936]If you read through the thread, you would have seen posts talking about exactly what you talked about.[/QUOTE] Either way man?! They talked alot about what they did and what they mentioned are felony charges, from bussing people around to voting booths, to conspiracy of inciting violence and manipulate peoples opinions via media, even if that was the case. We should just assume they were in on it? Why ruin your career like that? Give me a break.
Wow, it's like your arguments were all addressed a page ago and you're still trying to convince us you read the thread.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51260951]Wow, it's like your arguments were all addressed a page ago and you're still trying to convince us you read the thread.[/QUOTE] Again, why would the people getting fired do this? Why would they get themselves fired and ruin their careers for ever?
[QUOTE=dannass;51260972]Again, why would the people getting fired do this? Why would they get themselves fired and ruin their careers for ever?[/QUOTE] that was literally answered in the post I quoted, which you clearly haven't read.
[QUOTE=Naught;51261037]that was literally answered in the post I quoted, which you clearly haven't read.[/QUOTE] What? Do you mean this: [QUOTE=Naught;51255363]Because what happened last time people took everything that this guys videos pointed out for fact? ACORN happened.[/QUOTE] Cause that's not a compelling answer. That was a rather ignorant answer to my question.
[QUOTE=dannass;51261070]What? Do you mean this: Cause that's not a compelling answer. That was a rather ignorant answer to my question.[/QUOTE] Explain why it isn't a compelling answer?
[QUOTE=dannass;51261070]What? Do you mean this: Cause that's not a compelling answer. That was a rather ignorant answer to my question.[/QUOTE] that wasn't the post I quoted. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51259399] Being fired isn't a damning sign of guilt. When I worked for the call center in town it was written into my employment contract that if I was arrested for any reason and that information was published, I could expect to be fired on the spot as the company covered their ass and distanced themselves from even the [I]appearance[/I] of wrongdoing. Never mind if I wasn't charged with anything, if cuffs went on my wrist and work heard about it my job was forfeit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=froztshock;51261093]Explain why it isn't a compelling answer?[/QUOTE] Because Robert Creamer is a proven known associate of Hillary Clinton and he's seen in this video telling it straight to your face what she wants, man. [editline]26th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Naught;51261176]that wasn't the post I quoted.[/QUOTE] Again, Why would they risk getting fired? If these people are in on it just to make trump become president. What could possibly be worth years of work and career building, to just be erased to assist some guy making a anti hillary video for donald trump?
This guy lied 78903546 times before but idk what if he isn't lying this one time guys
[QUOTE=dannass] Again, Why would they risk getting fired? If these people are in on it just to make trump become president. What could possibly be worth years of work and career building, to just be erased to assist some guy making a anti hillary video for donald trump?[/QUOTE] They're not in on it, that's not the argument anybody's been making at all. That guy was just saying that being fired isn't proof because people get fired when they didn't do anything wrong all the time in order for the employer to save face (just like, you know, that other time O'keefe straight up lied and got ACORN people fired because of it). But the MAIN argument has always been "O'Keefe is a hack and he has been known to take clips out of context and lie about the context that those quotes were said in. No single unedited clip from his videos, considered in a vacuum, outside of the context that O'Keefe has told us they were said in, are actually definite proof of the crimes he's claiming." Give me some quotes that, outside of the context that O'Keefe has TOLD you they were said in, unambiguously mean what O'Keefe is claiming is true. Then we can have a discussion about what actually has some decent evidence for it and what looks like some classic O'Keefe bullshit. And no, "Hillary Clinton wants ducks on the ground" is not an unambiguous statement, that's about as fucking ambiguous as you get.
[QUOTE=Naught;51260840]it's almost as if you didn't read any posts in the thread[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=dannass;51260860]Look at me calling out the ignorance portrayed in this thread [B]and instantly I support trump[/B]. I don't support any of those fuckheads.[/QUOTE] ??? am i having a stroke
i feel like everyone who is saying that they don't believe any of this guy's videos is just lowkey afraid that its actually true, and will lead to trump being president. when the man talks about clinton wanting ducks on the ground (and getting ducks on the ground), what [I]possible[/I] context could that have happened under to [I]not[/I] be collusion? are you guys that deluded? do you think he shouted, "hey guys wanna hear me say something really fuckin dumb? ready?" and [I]then[/I] said it?? get real, jesus. just because you're afraid of trump (and yes, I am too) doesn't mean you can just ignore blatant evidence that hillary's campaign has violated the law. stop screaming about how the guy misled people in the past. this is a different event, and it is important.
[QUOTE=Quark:;51261714]i feel like everyone who is saying that they don't believe any of this guy's videos is just lowkey afraid that its actually true, and will lead to trump being president. when the man talks about clinton wanting ducks on the ground (and getting ducks on the ground), what [I]possible[/I] context could that have happened under to [I]not[/I] be collusion? are you guys that deluded? do you think he shouted, "hey guys wanna hear me say something really fuckin dumb? ready?" and [I]then[/I] said it?? get real, jesus. just because you're afraid of trump (and yes, I am too) doesn't mean you can just ignore blatant evidence that hillary's campaign has violated the law. stop screaming about how the guy misled people in the past. this is a different event, and it is important.[/QUOTE] Because they use weird codeword lingo all the time? We know they use weird terms like birddogging (which is never explicitly stated to mean actually inciting violence but that's neither here nor there), how is it impossible that they could use the word "duck" to refer to something not immediately obvious when we don't have the context? [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] O'keefe is a hack fraud known for faking EXACTLY THIS KIND OF SHIT, why would you EVER trust an out-of-context statement he gives you that doesn't explicitly provide evidence for his claims?
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51261801]Because they use weird codeword lingo all the time? We know they use weird terms like birddogging (which is never explicitly stated to mean actually inciting violence but that's neither here nor there), [B]how is it impossible that they could use the word "duck" to refer to something not immediately obvious when we don't have the context?[/B][/QUOTE] gee, i dunno...maybe the fact that there were literally fucking people dressed as [I]ducks[/I] at trump rallies?? seriously how are you this far deluded [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51261801] [editline]25th October 2016[/editline] O'keefe is a hack fraud known for faking EXACTLY THIS KIND OF SHIT, why would you EVER trust an out-of-context statement he gives you that doesn't explicitly provide evidence for his claims?[/QUOTE] i've read every page of the thread and have yet to see one person produce any physical evidence that O'keefe is a "hack fraud known for faking EXACTLY THIS KIND OF SHIT" everyone just keeps repeating it as if it's a fact now
[QUOTE=Quark:;51261851]i've read every page of the thread and have yet to see one person produce any physical evidence that O'keefe is a "hack fraud known for faking EXACTLY THIS KIND OF SHIT" everyone just keeps repeating it as if it's a fact now[/QUOTE] maybe do some research before you call people out on stuff you clearly don't know anything about [editline]26th October 2016[/editline] i can guarantee you that looking up the acorn scandal will take less time than reading this thread did
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51261866]maybe do some research before you call people out on stuff you clearly don't know anything about[/QUOTE] or when people call someone out they could perhaps include evidence to support their claim rather than hoping they get enough agree / zing ratings to just roll with it and not get called out themselves ?? come on you're not even providing evidence, you're just telling me to look it up lol
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.