Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max™]

(And, before you say so, a plot at a similar level from the opposition would have worked, if you even believe it would be done. But here all you need is one patsy to 'raise a sign', easily asked to do so for reward, and a second random and ultimately unidentified crowd member employed to shout "he's got a gun!", let the SS do the rest without even needing to know the plan, and however it turns out it boosts Trump's visibility amongst his target voters. Not saying it did happen that way, but neither would I dismiss the possibility.)

It's somewhat ironic that Trump supporters have people like 'Aaron Black', Scott Foval, etc, caught admitting on camera to inciting violence at Trump rallies in order to make his supporters look bad, or leaked e-mails that go into detail about how they need to get a 'special team' to 'birddog GOP candidates, especially likely nominee, at their events (need special staff team at HQ that does this)', and it still gets dismissed as conspiracy theories.

But then on the other side of the fence...

I love that "see video title/preview" script so much because it let's me mouse over instead of having to click the link.

I'm sure someone will probably get mad because that guy is a super-duper respected member of the youtube politics bullshit community or something, but when I see someone who is that much of a hipstery douchebag doing the whole "pseudo-intellectual looking down their nose and adjusting their glasses" pose, I'm not giving them a moment of my time, much less a pageview.

[Frumple]

Have you even watched the video I linked? And if so, do you have no issues with the things that Foval, 'Black' and others are caught saying? If you do have issues but believe they are down to 'video editing', can you point out specifically where and in what manner you believe things to have been done disingenuously?

Look, you link me the source(s) the video used and we can talk. The issue I have is that what they're saying on that video is damned likely to not actually be what they said. Because that is what veritas does. They're actually pretty damn good at the editing itself, to give 'em what credit they deserve. You pretty literally can't trust a single line of audio from anything they provide that isn't the actual unedited source video.

As for that particular email, I'm not even sure what you're trying to point out with it, tbh. Bird dogging isn't some kind of clandestine foul play, it's bloody standard politics. If you've been told it's something unusual, or for political groups to try to organize it, you're being lied to.

[smjjames]

Well, the thing with wikileaks is that Assanage has turned it into the vehicle of expressing his grudge against Clinton and there are indications of shilling with the Russians, as in the Russians gave them the hacked emails.

As for altering them or fabricating them out of whole cloth, there's no indication that wikileaks for their part is doing that, but theres definetly been a few that appear altered or fabricated from whole cloth with some more than obvious hints that it's the Russians doing the editing.

[Frumple]

... bird dogging has sod all to do with violence, cov. Term doesn't mean "follow people around and incite violence".

And I did watch some of it. Right until the point I noticed I was watching another piece of O'Keefe's bullshit. Then I closed it and did what anyone that had paid even the least of attention to the bugger would do and decided to wait until the actual video came out, instead of what that guy was passing as it. Forgot about it since, to be fair, but it's a busy time of year. If you've got some sort of evidence it's not just o'keefe being o'keefe again, it'd be interesting to hear about it.

[sluissa]

... bird dogging has sod all to do with violence, cov. Term doesn't mean "follow people around and incite violence".

And I did watch some of it. Right until the point I noticed I was watching another piece of O'Keefe's bullshit. Then I closed it and did what anyone that had paid even the least of attention to the bugger would do and decided to wait until the actual video came out, instead of what that guy was passing as it. Forgot about it since, to be fair, but it's a busy time of year. If you've got some sort of evidence it's not just o'keefe being o'keefe again, it'd be interesting to hear about it.

So you didn't watch it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I finally decided to waste my time watching the Project Veritas video, and I want my (twenty)sixteen minutes back. This is the most typical sort of political tactic I've ever seen, besides the suspiciously decontextualized "mentally ill people" soundbyte. No shit the political campaigns try to incite each others' extremists into giving them a story. That's not a fucking secret! What, am I the only one who realized this without working for one of the national conventions?

Funny part is, like 90% odds that they're just making this video on the orders of the Trump campaign themselves. Keep on dancing, puppets.

[Max™]

I think the biggest problem for Wikileaks is the whole "it's less about uncovering government corruption, and more about Assange having a hateboner for Clinton" at this point.

From what I've seen in other discussions of the veritas guys, people have posted things where someone mentioned a hypothetical statement "could you imagine if they were actually saying 'something incriminating sounding as hell' during an interview?" and they clipped it to 'something incriminating sounding as hell' to trumpet around.

I don't know or care what side they're on, it isn't my side, I don't for a moment think politicians will be straightforward and honest with me, but I'm not going to give anyone the time of day when they're misrepresenting information and lying to try and prove a point.

[sluissa]

There is this complaint and set of transcripts they filed with the FEC.

http://projectveritasaction.com/news/james-okeefe-files-fec-complaint-against-clinton-campaign-and-dnc

Personally I don't care who they're doing it for. It's enough evidence for me of some serious shadiness going on (piled onto the rest of it all) and I think it's illogical that people are willing to believe every tiny little rumor about Trump but just sweep everything about Clinton under the rug.

They're both corrupt as hell. They've both done shady shit. They've both done things that would end up with any normal person in jail.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Welcome to politics.

The question at the end of the day isn't, "are you corrupt", it's  "what is the nature of your corruption and your ability to be President"? In this election, there is a clear, damn near objective right and wrong answer to that question. Clinton is the only qualified candidate, therefore she should win. Doesn't matter what delusions people have about how the system "should" be.

[Frumple]

O'Keefe is in front of the camera before the 40s mark. The video is 16m26s long. I suppose it is technically accurate to say you watched 'some of it'.

The video is significantly longer than that, actually. That 16 and change is just whatever they decided to leave after cutting out and rearranging everything.

Seriously folks, veritas has made a career out of lying with film. If you're buying anything that comes out of one of their productions you're being willfully gullible at this point, as their history is incredibly easy to dig up. You can literally not trust a single thing from one of their videos to actually be what the source video recorded said. Evidence from veritas is not evidence at all, unless it is, again, the unedited source video. Which I still see is suspiciously missing.

[Starver]

What, specifically, are you alleging about the FBI, and can you provide any evidence of it?

Common knowledge. Wasn't it even said earlier in this very thread?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fbi+trumpland

[UXLZ]

Oh, but when someone brings up that level of evidence putting Clinton in a negative light, that's a big no-no.

[Frumple]

... mate, someone using veritas as a source doesn't get to complain about standards.

[Dostoevsky]

Bird dogging can be as simple as having somebody at the ready with a smartphone to catch anything embarrassing said; another common tactic is indeed to ask the target provocative questions and then record the response. Democrats and Republicans both have lost elections due to getting angry with bird doggers.

[Starver]

What, specifically, are you alleging about the FBI, and can you provide any evidence of it?

Common knowledge. Wasn't it even said earlier in this very thread?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fbi+trumpland

I think we have irreconcilable standards for what constitutes 'evidence'.

You feign ignorance about the allegations, I give you the allegations. I even give you a wide variety of sources to choose from, to find your favourite (or least unfavourite?) but you're obviously diving off an Egyptian bridge. Or a Parisian one.