• 'Quit whining,' Obama tells Donald Trump
    66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51228560]But this isn't people explaining hypotheticals about how they would commit these crimes if they wanted to. These are blatant confessions. Just one quote from Foval: "We have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake." Another one: "We manipulated the vote with money and action, not with laws." He says it right there in his own words: we did it.[/QUOTE] I'm on the fence on this one, but I gotta point out that making one thing look like another is the entire point of manipulation. If the argument is that the video was manipulated to look like confessions, it's obvious that you're going to find statements that look like confessions. The idea is that you can't conclude anything about the quotes because, if they were manipulated [I]well[/I], you wouldn't be able to work your way backwards and find the truth by thought - you'd have to see the original footage.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51228560]But this isn't people explaining hypotheticals about how they would commit these crimes if they wanted to. These are blatant confessions. Just one quote from Foval: "We have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake." Another one: "We manipulated the vote with money and action, not with laws." He says it right there in his own words: we did it.[/QUOTE] Manipulation of the footage could produce that I'm not going to just trust a known liar and manipulator who has been known to do both of those things in the past Ask yourself why you're so quick to believe one
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51229079]Manipulation of the footage could produce that I'm not going to just trust a known liar and manipulator who has been known to do both of those things in the past Ask yourself why you're so quick to believe one[/QUOTE] But how could it? You can't just say it could without explaining yourself. What amount of video manipulation could make these admissions of guilt false. They admit to these charges in plain english. I'm honestly wracking my brain trying to think how they could possibly explain that they're innocent. Even if by some magic these guys were just talking out their asses, does it not at least pique your interest that organizations paid by Clinton's campaign so openly speak about how they could commit voter fraud. If you listen to the things Foval says about republicans says he seems pretty god damn motivated and willing to commit these crimes. Why do they have a plan for how to commit voter fraud if they aren't going to do it? Plus this isn't 5 second audio clips edited together. This isn't O'Keefe making bullshit claims like he was goofily dressed as a pimp. These are large chunks of conversations in which Foval and Creamer take responsibility for these actions. Also "She was one of our activists who we had trained up to birddog." "Remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude's hand the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera? That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart who works for Bob." "We not only lent ourselves we planted multiple people in that front area around him and in the back to make sure there wasn't just a action that happened up front, there was also a reaction that happened out back." There is no way on god's green earth that that is anything but a blatant confession. O'Keefe's shady past doesn't change that these guys very clearly confess to some of these actions.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;51230814]I'm honestly wracking my brain trying to think how they could possibly explain that they're innocent.[/QUOTE] But if it is manipulated, and especially if it is manipulated well, then that's the goal - for you to not be able to see the truth no matter how hard you think. I agree with you that it's all extremely suspicious and I can't see how it could possibly be anything other than confessions myself, but it is a fact that the footage is edited, and it is also a fact that we can be deceived. We can't determine whether we are being deceived, not when the supposed deceiver is the one controlling what we see.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51223211]US won by nobody firing a shot, while USSR retreated their nukes off Cuba.[/QUOTE] The US signed a treaty that if they ever invade cuba the soviets got a right to retaliate with full on nukes, with the exception if cuba attacked first. also nukes were pulled from turkey and some other places. seems pretty even imo
[QUOTE=Conscript;51224502]...nobody won in 1962. Russia put in nukes in the first place because of our attempts to overthrow the Cuban revolution and our nukes in Turkey. That changed, nobody really gained much except an intact world This also isn't the Cuban missile crisis. This is basically clinton et al challenging russia in its backyard and the integrity of the state itself. It's a nationalist bulwark to our globally - minded 21st century designs. That's why the hitler comparisons are ridiculous, appeasement came from allies weakened by ww1 whereas we have never been touched by world war, and we are completely on the offense since the 90s and actively shaping things whereas hitler wanted to take the offense and overthrow an entire international order. But whatever. Liberal empires didn't learn from two world wars they couldn't make the world safe for democracy and, in fact, their designs for the world suck and have proven to be a zero sum game for non-western nations rather than a gain for everyone who desires peace and growth, which includes Vladimir 'common market from Lisbon to vladivostok' putin, former strongman for the pro-west Russian liberals and yeltsin. Maybe they'll learn when a non-republican hawk starts yet a other war in her career that brings us to ruin.[/QUOTE] Well i don't know if the west design for the world suck, but atleast it works and everyone want to migrate to the west because their country are shitty and control their every moves! How surprising don't you think if you design sucked???
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.