Project Veritas Action: Rigging the Election Part 3 - Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Involvement
151 replies, posted
[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]
What? Did a post get erased or something?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51261606]???
am i having a stroke[/QUOTE]
It's a new technique called "preemptive posting" - obviously you wouldn't know about it you pretentious ignoramus. Sickening.
[QUOTE=Quark:;51261851]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
[/QUOTE]
There's nothing linking this statement to the rally events except O'Keefe's credibility as a journalist and the phrase "ducks on the ground". As far as the first part goes, since you can't take the fucking ounce of effort to see if they guy who's word you're taking at face value is credible, here you go.
[QUOTE= Law Enforcement Source]“They edited the tape to meet their agenda,” a law enforcement source told the New York Daily News, which reported the investigation’s results on Monday.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.salon.com/2010/03/01/acorn_cleared/"]http://www.salon.com/2010/03/01/acorn_cleared/[/URL]
[QUOTE= Brooklyn District Attorney's Office]The video set up by conservative activist-reporters James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles — which seemed to capture ACORN employees advising a pimp and prostitute how to get a mortgage — was deemed by the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office to be a “heavily edited” splice job, after a five-and-a-half-month probe. Sources told the Post that “many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister.”[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/03/damaging_brooklyn_acorn_sting.html"]http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/03/damaging_brooklyn_acorn_sting.html[/URL]
[QUOTE= California Attorney General]The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O'Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O'Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf"]http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf[/URL]
What does all this mean? It means [B]we have to be extremely skeptical of any statement taken out of context by O'keefe.[/B] It is quite possible they were referring to something else entirely. They use codewords like this all the time, as I said before. Now does that mean the person in the video [I]wasn't[/I] talking about the people dressed up as ducks? No, it doesn't, he very well could have been saying exactly what O'Keefe said he was saying. BUT, O'keefe didn't show anywhere near enough footage to prove that this is the case. Given that he is a liar who [I]specifically misleads people by taking statements out of context[/I], then if you assume he's telling the truth about this? Well, there's one born every minute.
dannass, you may not be a Trump supporter, but you're doing an impressive imitation of Trump logic.
[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 and instantly I support trump. I don't support any of those fuckheads.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51259399]Being fired isn't a damning sign of guilt.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dannass;51261177]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]
You are literally answering arguments that don't exist. You just pretend they said one thing and reply to that. Nobody is saying the things you're responding to.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51262585]dannass, you may not be a Trump supporter, but you're doing an impressive imitation of Trump logic.
You are literally answering arguments that don't exist. You just pretend they said one thing and reply to that. Nobody is saying the things you're responding to.[/QUOTE]
Dude, why the fuck do they talk about the campaign like that. Just use your fucking head.
I'm done.
This fucker is a convicted liar and yet there are still people who believe this fraudster?
I think it's funny that the term anti-intellectualism is thrown around so much by the hard right when people like O'Keefe are blatantly and purposely misrepresenting facts to galvanize the uninformed into joining their ranks.
[QUOTE=Quark:;51261955]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[/QUOTE]
sorry, i don't believe you when you say that nobody in this thread has provided the evidence. could you quote every single post made here? you can't just claim stuff without evidence!
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=dannass;51262767]Dude, why the fuck do they talk about the campaign like that. Just use your fucking head.
I'm done.[/QUOTE]
normally i'd let this go after an offhand joke but i [I]have[/I] to ask: do you realize that nobody in this thread has called you a trump supporter?
[video=youtube;uBxNG-oeNDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBxNG-oeNDw[/video]
Opinion on this, brainwashed Hillary supporters.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51254067]But now the debate is if that invalidates the videos completely.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does
I'm pretty much fine banning these videos from here, there's nothing that can be said about them then hasn't already been said already
[QUOTE=Axelius;51263905]
Opinion on this, brainwashed Hillary supporters.[/QUOTE]
calling people brainwashed hillary supporters if they don't want to look at videos made by a convicted liar and fraud is funny.
not to mention o'keefe literally got funded by trump through donations. this is fact, through trumps donation records. I, for one, am not going to read much into this situation until the full unedited clips come out, which they haven't, and because they haven't, you can bet he's hiding a lot of shit behind them. I have no doubt that some of it is real, but I'm betting most of it is falsified.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51263905][video=youtube;uBxNG-oeNDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBxNG-oeNDw[/video]
Opinion on this, brainwashed Hillary supporters.[/QUOTE]
very bad presentation, poor diction, and the angsty intonation on his whispery, better-not-wake-up-my-parents voice makes it awful to sit through
there's my opinion of it
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51264017]very bad presentation, poor diction, and the angsty intonation on his whispery, better-not-wake-up-my-parents voice makes it awful to sit through
there's my opinion of it[/QUOTE]
Tone of voice doesn't discredit anything.
That's like saying Stephen Hawking can't be right about anything because he looks like a trainwreck.
Ok, so answer this question. Why were the people who were in the veritas videos fired if they did nothing wrong ?
Also, how fucking brainswashed can you get that people here call Wikileaks shit because this time their leaks targer your candidate, no one except high level army officals where whining about the NSA leaks.
GJ avoiding any real talk on the video and instead ragging on his voice.
[QUOTE=Naught;51264001]calling people brainwashed hillary supporters if they don't want to look at videos made by a convicted liar and fraud is funny.
not to mention o'keefe literally got funded by trump through donations. this is fact, through trumps donation records. I, for one, am not going to read much into this situation until the full unedited clips come out, which they haven't, and because they haven't, you can bet he's hiding a lot of shit behind them. I have no doubt that some of it is real, but I'm betting most of it is falsified.[/QUOTE]
Trumps 10k$ donation was a very small part of Project Veritas funding.
Atleast according to Sourcewatch.org, which is a left-wing site.
[QUOTE=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_Veritas]
Project Veritas does not appear to disclose its donors, but some of its major funders can be identified from tax filings and other documents. Known funders include:
Donors Trust: $149,450 (2011-2012)[23]
Donors Capital Fund: $105,000 (2012)[24]
Robert S. and Star Pepper Foundation (which has also funded the Media Research Center): $5,000 (2011)
Dunn's Foundation for the Advancement of Right Thinking: $1,000 (2013)[25]
Eric O'Keefe: $50,000 (2013)[12]
In 2015, the Center for Media and Democracy (which publishes SourceWatch) reported on tax documents showing that Eric O'Keefe, director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, made a $50,000 donation to Project Veritas in 2013. (When called by CMD and asked about the $50,000 donation, Eric O'Keefe said "I didn't give that in 2013," then ended the call.)[12]
[/QUOTE]
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51264486]P . R .
Doesnt matter you guilty or not. Have ou ever worked at a call center in USA? I heard if cuffs are put on you, doesnt matter the arrest lawful or not, or you charged with something or not, you get terminated. Same here.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
Wikileaks is shit because they have changed. They do not curate, they follo an agenda, they do not validate their sources. Explain this headline:
[url]https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/[/url][/QUOTE]
So if I understand correctly, you mean that since Wikileaks didn't release the full panama papers they were following an agenda, because most the leak mostly targeted Russian politicians?
There were also politicians from my country involved.
If that's the case, I would say that why does that make any difference if they don't release all the papers?
I don't like this fucking around with the videos / leaks either.
But if the evidence truly shows signs of corruption and crime, shouldn't the agenda behind be irrelevant?
also it wouldn't suprise me that Soros would fund anything he possibly could to further his agenda.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264477]Tone of voice doesn't discredit anything.
That's like saying Stephen Hawking can't be right about anything because he looks like a trainwreck.[/quote]
lol i didn't say he's wrong because his presentation is shit, i just said his presentation is shit
[quote]Ok, so answer this question. Why were the people who were in the veritas videos fired if they did nothing wrong ?[/QUOTE]
why was that one guy from the acorn scandal fired?
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264477]Why were the people who were in the veritas videos fired if they did nothing wrong ?[/QUOTE]
I'll take READ THE FUCKING THREAD for $200, Alex.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51264762]I'll take READ THE FUCKING THREAD for $200, Alex.[/QUOTE]
I've read it.. what am I missing that's so obvious?
by the way fourth video just came out.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264823]I've read it.. what am I missing that's so obvious?
by the way fourth video just came out.[/QUOTE]
A red handed liar is not trust worthy but you're ready to trust him without a second thought
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51264725]lol i didn't say he's wrong because his presentation is shit, i just said his presentation is shit
why was that one guy from the acorn scandal fired?[/QUOTE]
So explain why you can't talk about the video then?
I have no idea what the ACORN scandal is and who was fired so I can't make a educated answer on that one. But I know that O' Queef is politicly motivated. That STILL doesn't disprove anything on these videos because hes just reporting it.
I hope he releases the full tapes before the election. I wouldn't mind a full blown investigation on these videos and the Clinton campaing, but they are not going to do that because if the investigation was done properly, there would be corruption. What everyone in the media(except FOX, fucking :v: ) are acting like these videos don't exist which is fucking pathetic.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51264855]A red handed liar is not trust worthy but you're ready to trust him without a second thought[/QUOTE]
Ok hes been caught with shady video editing in the past. OK I accept that fact, but in correlation with the Wikileaks leaks and links found between these videos and the emails is pretty god-damn convincing to me.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264860]So explain why you can't talk about the video then?
I have no idea what the ACORN scandal is and who was fired so I can't make a educated answer on that one. But I know that O' Queef is politicly motivated. That STILL doesn't disprove anything on these videos because hes just reporting it.
I hope he releases the full tapes before the election. I wouldn't mind a full blown investigation on these videos and the Clinton campaing, but they are not going to do that because if the investigation was done properly, there would be corruption. What everyone in the media(except FOX, fucking :v: ) are acting like these videos don't exist which is fucking pathetic.
[editline]26th October 2016[/editline]
Ok hes been caught with shady video editing in the past. OK I accept that fact, but in correlation with the Wikileaks leaks and links found between these videos and the emails is pretty god-damn convincing to me.[/QUOTE]
You're still lacking huge amounts of context and info so how does it convince you unless you're already biased
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264860]I have no idea what the ACORN scandal is[/QUOTE]
that much was clear from the start
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51264875]You're still lacking huge amounts of context and info so how does it convince you unless you're already biased[/QUOTE]
Can you explain this question to me in a diffren't way, I can't really understand what you mean by context in this case.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264912]Can you explain this question to me in a diffren't way, I can't really understand what you mean by context in this case.[/QUOTE]
Between the videos and the leaks, there's still context missing and things we don't know that we're making assumptions about.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51264894]that much was clear from the start[/QUOTE]
you are not bringing anything smart to this conversation.
I know that that's the case he was charged with, cutting video on some prostitute thing, trying to make someone look quilty.
Does not make any diffrence in this case.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264928]you are not bringing anything smart to this conversation.
I know that that's the case he was charged with, cutting video on some prostitute thing, trying to make someone look quilty.
Does not make any diffrence in this case.[/QUOTE]
It does make a difference.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51264927]Between the videos and the leaks, there's still context missing and things we don't know that we're making assumptions about.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know, but based on the evidence that has been released, and maybe the fact that Facebook / Google / Youtube / CNN / other news networks are trying to censor this thing, is telling me that something weird is going on.
Even Finnish media is rigging online polls to support Clinton, I have no idea whats their agenda except get the whole world against trump to influence votes.
proof:
[quote][IMG]https://static.ylilauta.org/files/32/orig/vcxgiveg/valtamediaan_voi_aina_luottaa.png[/IMG]
Question was:"Olisiko Trump vaarallinen presidentti koko maailman kannalta?" TRANSLATED: " Would trump be a dangerous president for the whole world"
80% say YES
20% say NO
[/quote]
the % stay the same but the votes keep on coming.
This is statisticly impossible, there have been other polls aswell.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51264930]It does make a difference.[/QUOTE]
Maybe to you but this is the horses mouth that we are looking at.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264477]Why were the people who were in the veritas videos fired if they did nothing wrong ?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264823]I've read it.. [B]what am I missing that's so obvious?[/B][/QUOTE]
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1539005&p=51259399&viewfull=1#post51259399"]Yeah, this post is so small and has so little text in it it's really entirely understandable that you missed it and I owe you an apology.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264823]by the way fourth video just came out.[/QUOTE]
And the first remains unproven and he won't release the unedited footage. It's still all worthless until he does that.
I like how you proceed to regurgitate arguments that, again, were already addressed in the past two pages. Just like everyone who rolled in to defend a known fraud's edited footage.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264951]the % stay the same but the votes keep on coming.
This is statisticly impossible, there have been other polls aswell.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand statistical impossibility.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264928]you are not bringing anything smart to this conversation.
I know that that's the case he was charged with, cutting video on some prostitute thing, trying to make someone look quilty.
Does not make any diffrence in this case.[/QUOTE]
yeah silly me. someone who's edited footage to mislead and incriminate innocent people in the past should never have their credentials questioned. ulterior motives should be ignored, manipulative tendencies forgotten, and if you ever say otherwise, you're deluded and brainwashed
[QUOTE=Axelius;51264951]Yes I know, but based on the evidence that has been released, and maybe the fact that Facebook / Google / Youtube / CNN / other news networks are trying to censor this thing, is telling me that something weird is going on.
Even Finnish media is rigging online polls to support Clinton, I have no idea whats their agenda except get the whole world against trump to influence votes.
proof:
the % stay the same but the votes keep on coming.
This is statisticly impossible, there have been other polls aswell.
Maybe to you but this is the horses mouth that we are looking at.[/QUOTE]
So you don't think he'd be dangerous is what you're saying
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.