Hillary Clinton

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

as real journalism from Project Veritas and Wikileaks shows.

"Real journalism" from captain dildo boat, notorious for selectively editing and staging the most dishonest videos you'll ever find, and an anti-Hillary outfit selectively releasing propaganda for the Russian government? See, this is why I can't have honest, reality-based conversations with people.

There's a damn good reason propaganda put out by a troll like O'Keefe is not recognized by legitimate media sources. The fact that he refuses to release the source videos so that we can see how badly he doctored it and directed the conversation to create his narrative should be telling to even the blindest of believers. Sadly, it's not. Please do yourself a favor and look into why garbage put out by O'Keefe is not considered "real journalism." You can also look into Trump's "charity" paying O'Keefe $10,000 before those videos were made, not that O'Keefe needed the incentive to fake more videos.

Those things you refer to as "fucking real" are anything but. You're buying into conspiracies just as blindly as those who watch Alex Jones, and you're doing yourself a tremendous disservice by doing so.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is a very sad time for America. Our electoral process is on the verge of extinction, as reality is paved over with propaganda.

Yes, by that very same propaganda from Russia and O'Keefe that you refer to as "real journalism."

The two individuals featured most prominently in the Project Veritas videos are confirmed to be fired/resigned by Democratic spokespeople. In the third debate, Hillary was talking about the systematic espionage of Russian actors, not the systematic hoaxes coming from Russian actors. ACORN, an earlier subject of Project Veritas investigation, was dismantled due to its illegal practices.

These aren't the actions a legitimate organization takes against a hoax. It's damage control.

In the absolute best-case scenario, if you buy the White House line, the Project Veritas videos depict real, confirmed democratic campaign workers saying the actual words they're actually saying, with some form of weird context before the clips edited out of the video. So tell me, what possible context, what question asked by an undercover Veritas reporter, would make it okay for them to say the things they said? You can assume any context you want, but don't ignore the evidence.

It's interesting that you're willing to dismiss anything Democrats say citing context, but a (then Democratic) billionaire bragging about real or imaginary sexual exploits is unforgivable.

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Link, please, Dalai? =^[.]^=

I googled this and no major news source has picked it up, which I find suspicious. Some of the Dalai's quotes in the article source all the way back to 2015, again with no substantiated news source reporting on them.

I think your analysis is correct.


I should have looked for a bigger news site for that article. I wish I could say a more "reputable" news site, but I guess "major" or at least something publishing a hard copy would have been better.

Although the Dalai Lama has talked about ISIS and Putin (and Trump and Obama etc)in interviews (You can find several on Youtube) I couldn't find the exact quotes, nor anything that really substantiated them. Looking at his official website, it doesn't look like he had any public appearance on that date - nor does it appear (at a cursory search) that he has been in Russia since 2004.

My apologies for posting what looks now like a bogus article - it certainly wasn't my intent to mislead anyone. It just seemed so apopro to this discussion, that I linked before doing more checking.


I was able to find his impression of Trump though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz6WxFFArrs


On a more serious note - I have to wonder if the US govt is spreading an infection (or using Intel's backdoor) to try and get control of enough machines to shut down wikileaks. This map of DNS outages seems to get worse each time I check it.



[Edit] - Wiki seems to think it is actually supporters doing this. Hah! I will defer to their judgement.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/789574436219449345

This election is one crazy ride

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

ACORN was dismantled due to its illegal practices.

These aren't the actions a legitimate organization takes against a hoax. It's damage control.

Controversy caused by hoaxes takes down legitimate organizations and individuals all the time. I'm sure you know that, so I have no idea why you can't imagine it being true here.

From Wikipedia, extensively sourced on the page: "The edited videos were released on Fox News and the website BigGovernment.com from September into November 2009, generating extensive, negative publicity for ACORN, and leading to the U.S. Census Bureau and the IRS ending their contracts with ACORN, the U.S. Congress suspending its funding - and ACORN losing most of its private funding, despite several independent investigations that by December 2009 began to reveal no criminal activity by ACORN staff had taken place."

As for the rest, I'm not basing my view of reality on a combination of dishonestly presented videos and my imagination. That's not a rational method of interpreting reality. Get back to me when he releases the source videos.

Edit to reply to your edit:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It's interesting that you're willing to dismiss anything Democrats say citing context, but a (then Democratic) billionaire bragging about real or imaginary sexual exploits is unforgivable.

Holy batpoop the level of dishonesty in this statement!

I'm not dismissing anything Democrats say citing context. I'm dismissing O'Keefe's highly edited, dishonest videos. That is obviously not the same, and you conflating those in an attempt to attack me via Trump at some point in his life being a Democrat is absurd.

You should probably contact O'Keefe to help write some of his upcoming videos. You seem to have a similar style when it comes to duplicity and misrepresenting reality to craft a false narrative.

I don't think I'll bother communicating with you further. We clearly aren't sharing a reality.

Also, you spelled "millionaire" wrong.

"

Jennik wrote:

Controversy caused by hoaxes takes down legitimate organizations and individuals all the time. I'm sure you know that, so I have no idea why you can't imagine it being true here.

There are plenty of fraudulent efforts.

"

Jennik wrote:

As for the rest, I'm not basing my view of reality on a combination of dishonestly presented videos and my imagination. That's not a rational method of interpreting reality. Get back to me when he releases the source videos.

I wish they would release the full tapes - context is important.

Bernie got schlonged, folks.



Short reminder that with paper trail, Bernie was ahead 51 to 49. Without paper trail, he was behind 35 to 65. Those Soros owned voting machines are doing some work.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

No, she isn't any of those things... but at the same time, no, things aren't going to be fine. Hillary's campaign and the DNC, if not Hillary and Obama themselves, are thoroughly corrupt, as real journalism from Project Veritas and Wikileaks shows.

That Project Veritas has zero credibility (I think many people involved have been convicted because of the bullshit they pulled off). Jennik is right about that one. Without unedited videos, no one will take them seriously.

About wikileaks...well, people can't even agree about what the leaks mean. Honestly, I don't think they are damning even if they show you shouldn't trust Democrats at all (open borders? two faced ness?). I think how to interprete the information can be as problematic as false information (and so I prefer Snowden leak methods, so at leasts journalists can make a better work than /r/the_donald). How they are being read is the biggest exercise in grasping at straws I've ever seen (too much bullshit to refute everything though). With stuff like this: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/789459647459713028 I feel like they believe they are inside Deus Ex.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

No, she isn't any of those things... but at the same time, no, things aren't going to be fine. Hillary's campaign and the DNC, if not Hillary and Obama themselves, are thoroughly corrupt, as real journalism from Project Veritas and Wikileaks shows.

That Project Veritas has zero credibility (I think many people involved have been convicted because of the bullshit they pulled off). Jennik is right about that one. Without unedited videos, no one will take them seriously.

Good God man, think for yourself a bit.

Video editing is a process of selective dubbing. This means you can edit out video, but you cannot edit in. When you're watching a video, an edit is a cut, an instantaneous indicator of content removed. But all video you actually get to see is unedited video. The only question is how long it goes before an edit; the space between cuts constitutes one unedited piece of footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&t=5m3s
This is 1:47 of uncut footage of a AUFC employee explaining how AUFC and Democracy Partners have at least bent, and perhaps broken, campaign finance law by providing communication between the DNC, the Clinton campaign and Priorities, a Super PAC. This is a direct and unequivocal claim regardless of surrounding context.

After the cut is a small clip where context is highly important. Skepticism here is warranted.

After the next cut is a clip where context is somewhat important, but the overall tone implies that AUFC has attempted this stuff before. It could maybe be a hypothetical conversation, but if so it shows abnormal confidence that "it is not hard to get some of these assholes to pop off."

All of these clips are interviewing a man AUFC acknowledges exists, worked recently for AUFC, and was recently fired. Maybe this former AUFC employee is lying. But he certainly has some interesting claims, and that deserves FAR more attention and investigation than the topic has received.

Open your eyes.

I'll tell you what (and mods, let me know if this isn't OK), if the unedited footage is released and doesn't 100% prove they're innocent, an exalt for you, Scrotie.

"

Antnee wrote:

I'll tell you what (and mods, let me know if this isn't OK), if the unedited footage is released and doesn't 100% prove they're innocent, an exalt for you, Scrotie.

That's an interesting proposition. Not the exalt, but the idea that the full video would show they (Foval, Creamer et al) are 100% innocent.

The first portion of the Project Veritas video does show a little bit of leading by the interviewer - but then, he's trying to get him to talk about something that likely normally wouldn't get discussed openly. The cut footage might exonerate Foval (though I strongly doubt it) or it might show that what was deleted was just boring lead up trying to get the actual topic discussed.

The second portion with Creamer - does seem a little bit more leading, but the end response (going radio silent on taking action) and then the discussion with Foval about someone else handling it really look damning, imo.

The third section with the "dreamer" didn't seem like anything at all. It was more like an attempted sting operation where the investigators are doing more plotting than the supposed criminals. Other than showing that one of Fovbal and Cramer's GO TO GUYs actually exists, the response by the Dreamer in this segment almost refuted the idea that actions were being taken instead of just talk.

I've seen reports of third party videos showing some of the people actually participating at rallies where problems broke out. So far, I haven't seen enough of them, nor video evidence that shows them instigating the violence - which would be conclusive, and probably enough for a conviction in court.

If there was a way to compel them to release the full video, I would think the MSM should be likewise compelled to show the complete video - so the public can judge for themselves.

That the political machines (of either side) are corrupt and act unethically at times shouldn't even be in question. It's like saying Sharks eat meat.