Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’Keefe - Polidicks

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241711]Don't forget it's all President Lincoln's fault too. So far, nobody has had a single word to say about how these videos have been doctored or manipulated in any way (the closest was the thing with the old lady but I highly doubt O'Keefe would jeopardize his legitimacy in that way). And the video series isn't even complete yet.[/QUOTE] "jeopardize his legitimacy" Words fail me.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241711]Don't forget it's all President Lincoln's fault too. So far, nobody has had a single word to say about how these videos have been doctored or manipulated in any way (the closest was the thing with the old lady but I highly doubt O'Keefe would jeopardize his legitimacy in that way). And the video series isn't even complete yet.[/QUOTE] You're right, he wouldn't jeopardize his legitimacy He out right fucking destroyed in a genocidal attack on the very concept of legitimacy a few years back but no, you can go ahead and believe a red handed liar without a second of doubt.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51241772]"jeopardize his legitimacy" Words fail me.[/QUOTE] Why would he make that specific false edit? Was implicating that single old lady so integral to his agenda that he would selectively edit that particular part?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241711]Don't forget it's all President Lincoln's fault too. So far, nobody has had a single word to say about how these videos have been doctored or manipulated in any way (the closest was the thing with the old lady but I highly doubt O'Keefe would [B]jeopardize his legitimacy[/B] in that way). And the video series isn't even complete yet.[/QUOTE] What legitimacy? He's known to have taken clips out of context, rearranged them to fake the order in which they were said, and all-round completely misrepresented the people he was recording on multiple occasions. He has no credibility and when he promises you that [I]these[/I] out of context clips mean what he says they mean, without giving the context to prove it, you need to be as skeptical as possible or else you're just going to be another one of his suckers.

Also, how is he a guerilla filmmaker? Does he like film in Aleppo while trying to dodge Russian bombs or something? What is guerilla about him?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241781]Why would he make that specific false edit? Was implicating that single old lady so integral to his agenda that he would selectively edit that particular part?[/QUOTE] You fucking MADE the topics on the Videos forum about these videos, and posted in them. Dozens of people have already answered these questions in posts YOU RESPONDED TO. Don't fucking claim like we haven't made everything perfectly clear. The fact that you'd even talk about him not wanting to "jeopardize his integrity" shows that you're probably just trolling. No one can be that willfully ignorant.

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51241788]Also, how is he a guerilla filmmaker? Does he like film in Aleppo while trying to dodge Russian bombs or something? What is guerilla about him?[/QUOTE] A geurilla filmmaker is one who does "ambush" style interviews, where he catches somebody off guard and unprepared and starts drilling them with questions in the hopes that they say something stupid, incriminating, suspicious, or hostile. Michael Moore is a good example of this. I don't know that this is the best term to describe O'Keefe, however. He is more sinister than that. O'Keefe outright fabricates video evidence by splicing together completely unrelated questions, answers, and partial answers to make it appear as if the interviewee is saying things he's actually not. This isn't an opinion, it's an objective fact. O'Keefe has been caught doing this on several occasions.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51241808] I don't know that this is the best term to describe O'Keefe[/QUOTE] Propagandist, yellow journalist, liar, fraud, hack. A genuine piece of human garbage.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241781]Why would he make that specific false edit? Was implicating that single old lady so integral to his agenda that he would selectively edit that particular part?[/QUOTE] Did you read my previous post? Can you respond to it? Here it is again: [QUOTE=Zyler;51241744]Have you read this thread, or any of the other threads on this topic? Because the problems with the videos have been explained numerous times. Are you approaching this topic with the pre-existing belief that the videos are true? In that case, is it possible that your bias is making you unable to objectively read the explanations people have given you? Why do you think O'Keefe would not want to jeopardize his legitimacy? Do you believe that he is a legitimate filmmaker? Have you read the posts in this thread and other threads on this topic that have explained how he has repeatedly lied several times and gotten people falsely accused and fired over it? Do you still think O'Keefe is trustworthy? Why?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zyler;51241843]Did you read my previous post? Can you respond to it? Here it is again:[/QUOTE] I don't think that he is trustworthy. He's a Republican partisan hack and that's been clear for years now. But there are specific, uncut segments of his videos that expose legitimate (apparent) corruption and that has nothing to do with O'Keefe's trustworthiness. If you want me to make a post fisking Mort Strudle's post on the last page then don't hold your breath. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("If you're not going to defend your position. then stop posting. More Shitposting." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241897]I don't think that he is trustworthy. He's a Republican partisan hack and that's been clear for years now. But there are specific, uncut segments of his videos that expose legitimate (apparent) corruption and that has nothing to do with O'Keefe's trustworthiness. If you want me to make a post fisking Mort Strudle's post on the last page then don't hold your breath.[/QUOTE] What about this one: [QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51241786]What legitimacy? He's known to have taken clips out of context, rearranged them to fake the order in which they were said, and all-round completely misrepresented the people he was recording on multiple occasions. He has no credibility and when he promises you that [I]these[/I] out of context clips mean what he says they mean, without giving the context to prove it, you need to be as skeptical as possible or else you're just going to be another one of his suckers.[/QUOTE] We need to see the clips in-context in order to make sense of them and none of the examples you provided show any evidence of legitimate (apparent) corruption without that context. It's possible that you aren't giving the required degree of skepticism to these snippets that you should be because the outcome of legitimate (apparent) corruption is what you want to hear. Besides, if you aren't willing to respond to a post simply because it goes through each of your points one-by-one in a longform manner, then what's the point in even being here? You're just ignoring any bit of evidence that goes against your worldview as well as any posts that actually disprove your argument. Are you aware that you're being disingenuous?

lmfao, alright yeah no way, I'm flipping sides on this one you guys are right and this guy is just ridiculous [media]https://youtu.be/npYAqkObLqU[/media] The videos [I]look[/I] convincing.. But if you're not going to release the unedited cuts, fuck off

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51241897] If you want me to make a post fisking Mort Strudle's post on the last page then don't hold your breath.[/QUOTE] "Oh yeah smart guy, what context could make THESE quotes not incriminating" "Here's the reason why each of these quotes aren't incriminating" "Pfft, I can't be bothered to waste MY time defending them" congrats you conceded the argument, let's pack it in guys

[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51242031]"Oh yeah smart guy, what context could make THESE quotes not incriminating" "Here's the reason why each of these quotes aren't incriminating" "Pfft, I can't be bothered to waste MY time defending them" congrats you conceded the argument, let's pack it in guys[/QUOTE] Yea, it's disingenuous. King Tiger is essentially ignoring any argument that actually proves them wrong. At that point, Why even bother posting? I don't understand this mindset. I guess if somebody actually needed to be able to defend their arguments in order to post here, then a fair few people, including some Donald Trump supporters, wouldn't be able to post anything.

The SH isn't here for that, that was the mass debate [sp]a shame[/sp]

[QUOTE=srobins;51241951]lmfao, alright yeah no way, I'm flipping sides on this one you guys are right and this guy is just ridiculous[/QUOTE] Why won't the journalists just release their long-form raw notebooks? How do we even know that their notes were written in the US?