• Project Veritas Action: Rigging the Election Part 3 - Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Involvement
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Axelius;51265553] 1. protect his reporters 2. wait for the bitsize shit to trickle down on the public. 3. hes full of shit.[/QUOTE] But he already confirmed that he won't release the unedited footage; [video=youtube;npYAqkObLqU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYAqkObLqU[/video] and he does not give reason 1, instead he forms a vague and defensive [I]"but everyone else doesn't either, and everyone else is biased too"[/I] argument. So it seems to me that 1 and 2 are both out of the question.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51265386]Hey how about you actually tell us what points he's making instead of dropping a super biased obnoxious video that nobody wants to watch? I'm not going to sit through 7 minutes of this guy and fucking analyze the whole thing. You watched it, you know what argument he made, and you agree with it. What does he have to say that hasn't been addressed here? I mean this shit reminds me of when people in 9/11 conspiracy threads just like to drop a two hour documentary and expect that somehow that makes his argument for him. That's not making an argument, that's being phenomenally lazy. Make an argument, don't make us trudge through shitty biased videos.[/QUOTE] Copy and paste from Reddit thread for people who need spoon feeding. [quote]Here are some cliffnotes for those of you at work/school. TLDR: Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the DNC, Americans United for Change, and Democracy Partners, conspired to send agitators dressed in Donald Duck costumes to Trump events in order to call Trump's tax returns into question. On several occasions, the conspirators said that the decision to execute the "ducks on the ground" operation was ultimately Hillary's call. Bob Creamer, fired leader of Democracy Partners, is on record saying "In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States who wanted ducks on the ground, so, by God, we will get ducks on the ground. Don't repeat that to anybody." (0:30) "If the future president of the United States wants ducks on the ground, we will put ducks on the ground." (0:54) Hillary Clinton made the ultimate decision about having "ducks on the ground." (4:25) Ducks on the ground refers to people in Donald Duck costumes being sent to Trump rallies to agitate in regards to Trump's tax returns. Creamer discusses starting Ducks on the ground at Trump Tower. (2:15) "The real problem turns out that it's not easy to find Donald Duck costumes for adults, you might imagine. Five-year-olds, plenty of them, but the others are mascot size." (3:00) Brad Woodhouse, President of Americans United for Change, is also complicit in the "Ducks on the Ground" scheme. (3:45) Creamer quotes Christina Reynolds (Hillary Campaign), saying that "the candidate would like to have a mascot following around the duck. I mean Trump." (5:15) Woodhouse criticizes Hillary's decision-making process saying that "that story is not exactly what you want to hear about how presidential decision-making happens." That story refers to how Hillary got the Donald Duck idea from a friend of hers rather than through other means, such as advisers, etc. "But the bad news is she wants it to be Donald Duck. And that's because Skalar is an old Clinton man. He had gone to some buddy of his who is one of her body people and she had explained the idea to Hillary. And Hillary just loved it." (5:50) O'Keefe says that Federal Campaign Law experts have told Project Veritas that "the ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United for Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign." (6:20) Scott Foval, fired and disgraced Field Director of Americans United for Change, says that the "operation is to insert and get the duck message in there if we can, or the extremist message, depending on... we have to clear this with the DNC, with the Democratic National Committee, we have to clear which message we're going to be targeting at each event." (6:59)Foval discusses the tactics of "ducks on the ground" operations, saying that they will use "aggressive birddogging ... before the events." The paid duck agitators would then have alarms set, synced to the same time, on all of their phones that would go off with a duck call on the inside of the events -- this is done because Foval "wants the media to notice the duck calls." (7:45) Robert Creamer challenges Disney saying "Let them sue us. Please God." (9:15) Donna Brazile was implicated when she had to circumvent trademark issues with ABC/Disney. Creamer says "The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue." (10:10) (10:30-11:20) Creamer, once again, says that Hillary is responsible for the duck operation, "We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck." (10:20) Assistant Press Secretary for the DNC, Jenna Price, says "[the DNC] aren't taking credit for the duck anymore. That's like, random ally groups. But it's still something that we're involved in." (11:50) Woodhouse, Creamer, and others seem to hope that a duck agitator gets attacked somewhere and suggest that it was likely to happen at the Iowa State Fair while Pence was visiting. (12:55)[/quote]
[QUOTE=Tudd;51265787]Copy and paste from Reddit thread for people who need spoon feeding.[/QUOTE] Is this supposed to make me say "ah ha there's no missing context here"? because there's still missing context, and O'Keefe still won't release unedited tapes. If I told you I had tapes of Trump doing something, and I could give them to you edited, or unedited, which would you require?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51265860]Is this supposed to make me say "ah ha there's no missing context here"? because there's still missing context, and O'Keefe still won't release unedited tapes. If I told you I had tapes of Trump doing something, and I could give them to you edited, or unedited, which would you require?[/QUOTE] I could care less what you think, I posted it for people who want to short-read bullet points.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51265898]I could care less what you think, I posted it for people who want to short-read bullet points.[/QUOTE] the correct term is "Couldn't care less" what you're saying is you do care, and you could care less, so therefore you do in fact care what I think, thank you, very courteous of you. But my point stands, having read through that, I appreciate the bullet points, it's not really going to be a massive reveal that changes anything. It still means there is context that is required.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51265907]the correct term is "Couldn't care less" what you're saying is you do care, and you could care less, so therefore you do in fact care what I think, thank you, very courteous of you. But my point stands, having read through that, I appreciate the bullet points, it's not really going to be a massive reveal that changes anything. It still means there is context that is required.[/QUOTE] Do you ever wonder why arguing with you and some others is about as fun as a never-ending whack-a-mole? Except the moles are dicks also.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51265919]Do you ever wonder why arguing with you and some others is about as fun as a never-ending whack-a-mole? Except the moles are dicks also.[/QUOTE] very poor zinger, i rate a 4
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51265962]very poor zinger, i rate a 4[/QUOTE] I don't see the need to go to shit posting or poking at obvious writing mistakes is all.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51265919]Do you ever wonder why arguing with you and some others is about as fun as a never-ending whack-a-mole? Except the moles are dicks also.[/QUOTE] I mean you can blame this solely on me, people like me, people on FP who are similar to me, but that's a weak cop out and I think, you know it. I've no love for Hilary, I've no love for Trump, and I used to clash with Raidyr quite frequently on how terrible his stance regarding Clinton was. I've dealt with, and spoken to just about every poster who goes to SH, or the Videos section to post presidential campaign news or in relation to it. In that time frame, I've had the vast majority of my concerns around Clinton answered in one way or the other, not enough to assuage my fears of her but actual answers none the less. In that time frame, I have not had any of my fears, thoughts, or concerns regarding Trump even answered, no matter how politely I ask, no matter how inoffensively I act, or engage in the conversation. A year of this has resulted in exactly bubkiss for answers. Trump voters don't seem to care that people have concerns, at least not enough to answer them. So, while you may be sitting here saying "Humanabyss is such a piece of garbage who just won't let up, it's his fault solely that these conversations are so painful", sure pal, sure, but the issue really is "why do you expect me to have infinite patience with non answers, and garbage attitudes?". I can't get simple answers for simple concerns. I can't get anything less than full on patronizing "why do you care about this you're canadian" or non arguments to that effect. So while you may be asking me how come it's so miserable to chat with me I have to ask you Why is it so miserable to talk to any Trump supporters, and why has it been that way since the get go?
[QUOTE=Tudd;51265787]Copy and paste from Reddit thread for people who need spoon feeding.[/QUOTE] Why, when replying to someone who was criticizing another person for being unable to provide an argument based on a video that they shared, would you then go and post excerpts and bullet points from the wrong video? Congrats. Nobody mentioned either that the "Doubt O'Keefe?!!" video Axelius posted, that supposedly contains a compelling argument, is from a channel called fucking [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave][B][I]Plato's Cave[/I][/B][/url] of all things. A channel who has many interests including: 9/11 truthing, water fluoridation, crackpot new age spirituality (TIL about ISKCON and veganism), anti-vax, mercury fillings conspiracies???, anthrax attack conspiracies, I could go on. This same channel also has 7 other videos propping up O'Keefe as an exposer of corruption. So first you've got a proven liar and fraud who's existence on this Earth is dedicated to fabricating deceptive, literal "conspiracy exposed" videos, flashing his neon sign of an agenda. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe]Since ~'08 relying on the same tools of his trade. Splice job quote mining. Leading Questions. Secret filming under false pretenses + staging entire encounters with actors. Etc, etc.[/url] How compelling. Then we have resident Axelius sharing a video defending the newest work of art from a calculated and reprehensible human being. His best source? The youtube channel of a paranoid crazy. When pressed Axelius is incapable of presenting a rational argument based off a 7 minute video that he shared in place of writing an argument in the first place. Somehow simultaneously managing to both admit ignorance of integrally related subjects (multiple times) and talk down to remarkably reasonable posters the whole time. Finally fucking off when he eventually recognized just how ignorant he was on the matter, failing to save face with a final link to circumstantial evidence showing satellite feeds cutting out plus a note essentially saying "you can learn more about my conspiracy theory yourself if you just type this name and a loaded word into the internets!" How embarrassing. Now have I spoon fed to [I]you[/I] yet how the boy who cried wolf has almost certainly sold you on his latest lie? Has it really sunk in for you that the man who could do all the terrible things that his own Wikipedia page spells out in vivid detail might be able to successfully do again what he has done for almost a decade? That the boy who cried wolf [I]yet again[/I] refused to supply any evidence outside of his carefully controlled narrative? [I]Evidence that he has curated and could release at any time with a few button presses.[/I] [B]Evidence that may be critical in resolving unanswered questions that exist only because in reality [I]his narrative[/I] has huge, gaping holes.[/B] You and a few others in this thread seem to have relished being condescending about ignoring evidence. Yet the only evidence presented here has been circumstantial, intentionally lacking context, extremely vague, and sourced from a deceiver and defended by a nutter. Children recognize why the villagers stopped listening. Why haven't you?
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51266635]Why, when replying to someone who was criticizing another person for being unable to provide an argument based on a video that they shared, would you then go and post excerpts and bullet points from the wrong video? Congrats. Nobody mentioned either that the "Doubt O'Keefe?!!" video Axelius posted, that supposedly contains a compelling argument, is from a channel called fucking [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave][B][I]Plato's Cave[/I][/B][/url] of all things. A channel who has many interests including: 9/11 truthing, water fluoridation, crackpot new age spirituality (TIL about ISKCON and veganism), anti-vax, mercury fillings conspiracies???, anthrax attack conspiracies, I could go on. This same channel also has 7 other videos propping up O'Keefe as an exposer of corruption. So first you've got a proven liar and fraud who's existence on this Earth is dedicated to fabricating deceptive, literal "conspiracy exposed" videos, flashing his neon sign of an agenda. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe]Since ~'08 relying on the same tools of his trade. Splice job quote mining. Leading Questions. Secret filming under false pretenses + staging entire encounters with actors. Etc, etc.[/url] How compelling. Then we have resident Axelius sharing a video defending the newest work of art from a calculated and reprehensible human being. His best source? The youtube channel of a paranoid crazy. When pressed Axelius is incapable of presenting a rational argument based off a 7 minute video that he shared in place of writing an argument in the first place. Somehow simultaneously managing to both admit ignorance of integrally related subjects (multiple times) and talk down to remarkably reasonable posters the whole time. Finally fucking off when he eventually recognized just how ignorant he was on the matter, failing to save face with a final link to circumstantial evidence showing satellite feeds cutting out plus a note essentially saying "you can learn more about my conspiracy theory yourself if you just type this name and a loaded word into the internets!" How embarrassing. Now have I spoon fed to [I]you[/I] yet how the boy who cried wolf has almost certainly sold you on his latest lie? Has it really sunk in for you that the man who could do all the terrible things that his own Wikipedia page spells out in vivid detail might be able to successfully do again what he has done for almost a decade? That the boy who cried wolf [I]yet again[/I] refused to supply any evidence outside of his carefully controlled narrative? [I]Evidence that he has curated and could release at any time with a few button presses.[/I] [B]Evidence that may be critical in resolving unanswered questions that exist only because in reality [I]his narrative[/I] has huge, gaping holes.[/B] You and a few others in this thread seem to have relished being condescending about ignoring evidence. Yet the only evidence presented here has been circumstantial, intentionally lacking context, extremely vague, and sourced from a deceiver and defended by a nutter. Children recognize why the villagers stopped listening. Why haven't you?[/QUOTE] I am sorry I can't give you good sources or anything, but that's because what kind of sources can I give you if no one is even reporting on any of these videos on the mainstream media. no one credible isn't shifting trough the bullshit. and I think that 9/11 was a false flag, asbestos removing operation. Don't know about the other shit though :v:
[QUOTE=Axelius;51267174]I am sorry I can't give you good sources or anything, but that's because what kind of sources can I give you if no one is even reporting on any of these videos on the mainstream media. no one credible isn't shifting trough the bullshit. and I think that 9/11 was a false flag, asbestos removing operation. Don't know about the other shit though :v:[/QUOTE] So you're one of those people who think jet fuel can't soften structural steel to the point where it's no longer "structural" eh?
[QUOTE=Axelius;51267174]and I think that 9/11 was a false flag, asbestos removing operation. Don't know about the other shit though :v:[/QUOTE] Imagine that, in the place of this sentence of mine you are reading right now, that its actually just a page-stretchingly large image of goatse. [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] In all seriousness though Axelius I'm genuinely impressed. Of all possible ways you could have responded, with impeccable efficiency you managed to add nothing and not process one iota of the raw, honest reality layed out in front of your eyes. Ya put your cognitive dissonance on a silver platter, man, suggesting that there is a difference between what I called you out on using (let me reiterate: instead of arguing anything yourself) and this "no one credible" category of media you say isn't reporting. And to pull it all together bow tying your post by simply displaying you are exactly the demographic that O'Keefe preys on.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51267204]So you're one of those people who think jet fuel can't soften structural steel to the point where it's no longer "structural" eh?[/QUOTE] No I'm thinking of explosives. [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;51267357]Imagine that, in the place of this sentence of mine you are reading right now, that its actually just a page-stretchingly large image of goatse. [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] In all seriousness though Axelius I'm genuinely impressed. Of all possible ways you could have responded, with impeccable efficiency you managed to add nothing and not process one iota of the raw, honest reality layed out in front of your eyes. Ya put your cognitive dissonance on a silver platter, man, suggesting that there is a difference between what I called you out on using (let me reiterate: instead of arguing anything yourself) and this "no one credible" category of media you say isn't reporting. And to pull it all together bow tying your post by simply displaying you are exactly the demographic that O'Keefe preys on.[/QUOTE] It's hard to argue with no evidence, but the same goes the other way around, you have no evidence that O´queef is lying in this instance. and isn't it better to claim ignorance, instead of making an assumption and pretending you know it as fact.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51267482]No I'm thinking of explosives. [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] It's hard to argue with no evidence, but the same goes the other way around, you have no evidence that O´queef is lying in this instance. and isn't it better to claim ignorance, instead of making an assumption and pretending you know it as fact.[/QUOTE] Yeah I am saying you believe explosives were used, likely because you believe steel can't melt under the heat of jet fuel
[QUOTE=Axelius;51267482]It's hard to argue with no evidence, but the same goes the other way around, you have no evidence that O´queef is lying in this instance.[/QUOTE] Yes, yes it is. So don't. The burden of proof is on the accuser. So without evidence, you don't. It's not necessary to accuse O'keefe of lying in order to say that his evidence can't function as evidence when it is edited. He may be lying, he may be telling the truth. Nobody can determine it because we don't have the footage, which should really be a pain in the ass for O'keefe considering he wants to present it as evidence. So, about him releasing that unedited footage. Got any new ideas why he would refuse to release it? If it's really damning evidence, wouldn't it almost be his moral duty to do so? Doesn't he defeat his own purpose by refusing to do so? Imagine having evidence that would truly hurt the candidate you hate, and you decide to edit it a little bit so that instead of it having [I]real consequences[/I], you get a bunch of views on YouTube and people argue about it online.
[QUOTE=Axelius;51267482]No I'm thinking of explosives.[/QUOTE] But have you thought about how you readily believe that the US gov (let alone [I]any[/I] democratic type modern government) would be willing to terrorize their own people on such an appalling scale just to get rid of a little asbestos and in doing so start ~The Eternal Sand Wars~, brought to you by: enormous, sustained deficit spending? Yet can hardly fathom a scenario where a single corrupt man with a very well documented 8 year history of engineering and selling people lies would turn around and, shockingly, doctor up a new video made to sell you an idea? A video that just like the rest of them pushes his personal ideology with no attempt at journalistic integrity, that's paid for by the same groups and people who would [I]want[/I] to smear the subjects of the video? Like, you're either an excellent troll or actually ill. I'll go ahead and make this [i]one more post, with style[/i]. Let myself get roped in here just one time. Now I won't bat an eye if this all bounces off you like radar, but how can one reconcile a government doing something, that even blowing by any concept of ethics, still makes 0 sense. 9/11 convinced my country to leap into an ever tangling conflict. We sent tons of our own people off to die, in a place that is a logistical and strategical nightmare for war, costing fortunes of money we didn't really have. I would argue accomplishing little more than sheer retaliation and repeating many of the same mistakes we've made in the past: fueling instability that will affect the entire world for a long time, but even worse fallout this time! Some hypotheticals for u: How then would you attempt to rationalize all of these events with the idea that 9/11 was a false flag - for any reason. Like how would you factor in Al-Qaeda and what kind of role they played? Do you really believe the US gov is clever enough to cover their tracks so well that the only people who actually believe these theories are 110% dismissed as nutso by (real number here) ~95% of the population, but somehow stupid enough to plan and execute a false flag with such obviously predictable potential consequences? Is your grand delusion that they honestly, carefully planned all of 9/11 out with any and all ramifications imaginable, and at the end of this process (and it would have been a long, extensive, thorough process) made the call that the risk/reward was in any way remotely worth it? It would've been painfully obvious that the aftereffects could be [I]devastating[/I]. And all this mostly over... asbestos? Maybe a dash of military-industrial complex? Lol. [I]Cause ironically not in favor of your conspiracy, you may already know they would have actually been drawing from prior experience![/I] Operation Northwoods was exactly the same idea as what many truthers subscribe to. [url=http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=236#relPageId=21&tab=page][B]But was rejected outright because it was a bad idea then.[/B][/url] (p 21-23) So, [B]what real case can be made[/B] that it was such a good strategy this time around that the US would've went through with it, on such a large scale, well after the public was aware of O.N. and just a month after Cuba condemned the O.N. plans? That's not very good risk analysis. Maybe, just maybe, the reality of this line of thinking could actually be like what we've got with good old O'Keefe here! That maybe there is no grand puppet master for your theories to uncover, that your type so desperately wants to perceive. Maybe a few small, inhuman monsters really could inflict a wound that disturbs and disrupts a powerful nation. Kind of like the small, corrupt man who once slandered ACORN, harming the organization and livelihoods of its innocent employees. You can argue for being impartial towards partial evidence until you're blue in the face dude but where does that sense of skepticism go when you think of your own subset of crackpot ideologies? Truther shit is built up the same predictable way as every conspiracy James O'Keefe ever wove. Makes you think...
[video=youtube;Pqm2TmQ1Fho]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqm2TmQ1Fho[/video] also look at foxnews site right now. [IMG]https://static.ylilauta.org/files/ff/orig/0xjx66wd/jutku.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Axelius;51270243]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqm2TmQ1Fho also look at foxnews site right now. [url]https://static.ylilauta.org/files/ff/orig/0xjx66wd/jutku.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] So you're just gonna skip to another topic, huh... Do you have any new ideas why O'keefe isn't releasing the full footage or are you going to admit that it makes no sense for him not to, unless there's something shady about it? [editline]27th October 2016[/editline] I agree that it's fucking bullshit of Hillary to just blame Russia and pretend that means we should ignore the emails.
I love all of the focus on Soros as a boogie man The man's biggest crime is being a wealthy leftist Jewish Holocaust survivor.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51265650]But he already confirmed that he won't release the unedited footage; [video=youtube;npYAqkObLqU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYAqkObLqU[/video] and he does not give reason 1, instead he forms a vague and defensive [I]"but everyone else doesn't either, and everyone else is biased too"[/I] argument. So it seems to me that 1 and 2 are both out of the question.[/QUOTE] haha, he says himself he's piecing together media to create a narrative. yeah 'no journalist here would release their raw information' because they'd probably look like disingenuous idiots.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.