Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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.

And if anybody on the Presidential stage was going to screw themselves like that, it'd be Trump.

[Rolan7]

[8 new replies lol]

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'.

Not sure what you're implying, exactly, but O'Keefe is primarily responsible for this.  He's not the whole team, but he's the face that tries to sell the lies.

I watched this video a couple weeks ago on my brother's recommendation, and...  Maybe it isn't *all* bullshit.  Liberal activists (*not* directly tied to Clinton) may be putting themselves in harm's way to make Trump look bad.  Through such inciteful acts as wearing Planned Parenthood shirts.
Boo
hoo

Of course my brother ate up all the nonsense trying to tie Hillary to this directly (he's convinced Clinton is a liar, and nothing will change that).  Everything related to that was *tiny* clips, which means they were taken out of context to fake a narrative.  That is what this guy *does*, has done for years.  He is 100% untrustworthy.  I'm only barely willing to believe that the people in these clips even said the things they're shown saying - because O'Keefe has a proven record of editing video to fool people.

Maybe these people were just really eager to testify that Clinton was involved.
That really serves their interests, right?

Or maybe... maybe... they were overstating their connection with the campaign out of ego, due to prodding from a PROVEN master manipulator, or due to alcohol in an obvious case.
And so they said things that, spliced together well, paint a fairly bad picture.

It's kinda telling that this is the worst the scumbag can do.

[sluissa]

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.

Most of the links there are all quoting the guardian, and the guardian is mostly quoting a single anonymous source and Clinton herself.

[UXLZ]

Pointing out that the people with the "high-ground" e.g. on the side of Her Majesty Clinton II shouldn't have double standards is a perfectly valid thing to do. On another note, I love people painting the FBI as crazy pro-Trump people who hate poor Hillary and are doing all these awful things to try and help Herr Trump win, forgetting this might be because Comey not recommending an indictment was actually bullshit and a lot of people in the FBI aren't very happy with it.

[Rolan7]

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.

No, I'm simply pointing out that what you've said so far has about as much worth as if I had said

'It's common fucking knowledge Clinton is corrupt m8, just look at this.'

Starver was pointing out the allegations, not providing proof that they were true.
You asked what the allegations *were*.

[sluissa]

Pointing out that the people with the "high-ground" e.g. on the side of Her Majesty Clinton II shouldn't have double standards is a perfectly valid thing to do. On another note, I love people painting the FBI as crazy pro-Trump people who hate poor Hillary and are doing all these awful things to try and help Herr Trump win, forgetting this might be because Comey not recommending an indictment was actually bullshit and a lot of people in the FBI aren't very happy with it.

From that same guardian article people keep saying is proof of "Trumpland"

“There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt. What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician,” said a former FBI official.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

[UXLZ]

He was also asked for evidence.

[UXLZ]

Pointing out that the people with the "high-ground" e.g. on the side of Her Majesty Clinton II shouldn't have double standards is a perfectly valid thing to do. On another note, I love people painting the FBI as crazy pro-Trump people who hate poor Hillary and are doing all these awful things to try and help Herr Trump win, forgetting this might be because Comey not recommending an indictment was actually bullshit and a lot of people in the FBI aren't very happy with it.

From that same guardian article people keep saying is proof of "Trumpland"

“There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt. What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician,” said a former FBI official.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

Not actually really talking about the article itself there. Props to it for actually being vaguely unbiased. Despite an obvious pro-Clinton slant, it's actually bringing up opposing points of view as well.

The leaks have not exclusively cast aspersions on Clinton. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, is the subject of what is said to be a preliminary FBI inquiry into his business dealings in Russia. Manafort has denied any wrongdoing.

At the very least that shows the FBI isn't this universally pro-Trump conspiracy (or at least that some of the people leaking are trying to be non-partisan. Or there are two partisan sides leaking dirt on the others.)

[sluissa]

I wonder how the military people feel.

I imagine we can all predict which way the majority of the military are going to be voting, and I imagine the same goes for the police and similar agencies.

Starver was pointing out the allegations, not providing proof that they were true. You asked what the allegations *were*.

And I'm still waiting. For something a little better than 'The FBI are on Trump's side', for that matter. I would like to see allegations of specific wrongdoing with evidence to back them up.

Last I heard the military was pretty strongly for Johnson over the other two.

Although this shows trump ahead a little:
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-president

[UXLZ]

Note that we've now completely diverted from the question of the sources to that video earlier, since people found arguments that they actually have a chance of winning to argue over.

Best tactic in a losing argument is to change the subject, after all.

Veritas is probably bullshit. I have no idea what it is, but it's probably (not definitely) bullshit, with a few potential grains of truth spread here and there, buried beneath an amorphous sea of lies and dry-labbing. I've always hated those overblown things that take attention and credibility from more serious investigations/whatever it is Veritas is like, they're usually just as bad as the oftentimes ridiculously biased mainstream media sources and also occasionally even worse.

[LoSboccacc]

I love people painting the FBI as crazy pro-Trump people

What strikes me odd is that the whole press switched from FBI the bastion of truth to FBI the political death wing of Trump overnight and people A) didn't see an issue with it and B) followed suite immediately

America is at 'Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia' level of propaganda and seems the majority isn't noticing.

[sluissa]

I'll agree I'd like to see the original videos too. But I don't personally believe the fact that they've been edited for consumption is a solid reason to ignore them entirely.

[Starver]

Most of the links there are all quoting the guardian, and the guardian is mostly quoting a single anonymous source and Clinton herself.

The fact that it was a single source isn't an issue. Woodward and Bernstein were a 'single source' back in the day. But look at the all the different places who report Ackerman's story. Even Fox, goddamnit, after having apologised for misleading people about spurious indictment charges. It's a spectrum of all those that consider it credible to report, and to have not heard of the allegations (and, yes, I've heard of the allegations against Clinton; what's that got to do with the price of fish?) is the presumed disingenuousity I was highlighting.

[Frumple]

No, veritas is not probably bullshit. It's 100% repeatedly caught in the act bullshit. Again, they've made their career lying with film. It is what they do, it's what they've done, and it's pretty likely to be what they will continue to do.

But yeah, the fact that they've been edited to deceive is the solid reason to ignore them completely. They're not edited for consumption, they're edited to distort, and significantly. They've done it repeatedly. They've been caught repeatedly. This is not new, they are not unknown factors, there is actually no doubt in their lack of reliability. If they are providing material that is not raw, unedited, uncut footage, you cannot trust what they are releasing.

Last I heard the military was pretty strongly for Johnson over the other two.

Although this shows trump ahead a little:
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-president

Which isn't terribly surprising, really. Trump's pretty damn unpopular with a lot of the military, from what I've seen in person and otherwise. Shitting on vets and their families and expressing military policy best described as "bugnuts" will do that, oddly enough.

Still going to vote for trump a fair bit due to the conservative lean and the R beside his name, but soldiers and vets are actually pissed off at trump to a fairly notable degree

[Rolan7]

I love people painting the FBI as crazy pro-Trump people

What strikes me odd is that the whole press switched from FBI the bastion of truth to FBI the political death wing of Trump overnight and people A) didn't see an issue with it and B) followed suite immediately

America is at 'Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia' level of propaganda and seems the majority isn't noticing.

Noting that the FBI found no evidence worth bringing charges is different from calling the FBI "the bastion of truth".  If anything the implication is that the FBI would love to charge her, but failed.
Though the FBI was quite a bit truthier than those repeating unsubstantiated charges, to dishonestly win a battle of public opinion.
At least until they volunteered "actually maybe she did do something! but nothing we can back up... yet!" a few days before the general election.  Which is a pretty obvious and partisan play.