OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[Mech Engineer]

For the life of me I can't see what Hillary has done to warrant all this anger towards her. Its like people are putting Trumps real actions up against conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Now we have people pushing the conspiracy that Clinton is stealing the election without any REAL proof. Its an echo chamber of misinformation.

You must be an avid viewer of CNN or an active member of CTR.

A) Podesta emails are real.
B) New FBI emails are real.
C) Foreign Government funding is real.
D) Hillary's campaign having paying violent instigators with the intent to blame Bern/Trump is real and verified by her own website is real.
E)

Watch on YouTube

F) (RELEASED TODAY PART II)

Watch on YouTube

Seriously, what else do you want as proof?

I don't know, an actual report from a non-nut. I don't watch CNN. How about Washington Post, NY Times, the AP, Bloomberg, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - you know any of the 100s of reputable news sources that don't publish on youtube. I'd even take FOX at this point.

My emails are "real" too. That isn't evidence of wrongdoing. A bunch of comments taken out of context aren't evidence of wrongdoing. Especially when they can come from a person who has been demonstrated to have produced fake videos on multiple occasions.

One big problem in our country is the breakdown of intellectual authority. Some people would rather believe a guy on the internet as opposed to the 50 or so reputable media organizations we have. People will believe there own cousin about global warming before they believe scientists. I love the internet, but one thing it has done it has turned facts into opinions and conspiracies into facts. Your desire for this stuff to be true, doesn't make it so.

Yeah...you don't have to be pro-Hillary or anti-Trump or whatever else....But, one needs to look at facts and analyze where they come from. The conspiracy theorists/followers are not only creating/believing in crap but are also getting very agitated/angry about it. That's the scary part.

[TeK]

For the life of me I can't see what Hillary has done to warrant all this anger towards her. Its like people are putting Trumps real actions up against conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Now we have people pushing the conspiracy that Clinton is stealing the election without any REAL proof. Its an echo chamber of misinformation.

You must be an avid viewer of CNN or an active member of CTR.

A) Podesta emails are real.
B) New FBI emails are real.
C) Foreign Government funding is real.
D) Hillary's campaign having paying violent instigators with the intent to blame Bern/Trump is real and verified by her own website is real.
E)

Watch on YouTube

F) (RELEASED TODAY PART II)

Watch on YouTube

Seriously, what else do you want as proof?

What more do people want as proof?

What about actual proof, actual quotes from people willing to put their name to them, rather then a journalist talking with people off-camera, in conversations that could easily be edited and taken out of context?

You don't think that if any of this was factual, real and possible, that any other respectable journalist in the country wouldn't plant it on the front page as the biggest story in American history? You think that every single skilled and journalist with integrity is part of Clinton's 'conspiracy'?

And why do the Democrats need to rig an election that they're leading in every poll?

Or, are the polls, run by independent organisations, in on the conspiracy too?

None of it makes any sense. None of it.

You're being mislead and you're hatred and mis-trust of Hillary is leading you to places, reason and logic that will be difficult to come back from.

This is an actual journalist. James O'Keefe is a real, reputable journalist. This isnt Bobby Bridges, undercover reporter reporting from his mom's basement.

How is this not factual, real or possible? You have the ACTUAL members of these organization on video. One of them got fired yesterday.

TIme Warner is the 5th biggest contributor to Hillary's campaign. TW also owns CNN. Yes, I think a top down decision was made to not broadcast things like wikileaks etc. Why would TW not protect their investment? Fox news is covering O'Keefe's video.

I'm not sure why the democrats need to rig an election, but its fairly obvious its happening.

I guess im confused as to what you're confused about? What are you refuting from these videos? Its a VIDEO. How are you going to deny these things are happening? The video was spliced and edited to make Scott's mouth move precisely in the way to utter the words it does? Like what are you even saying?

[Bascitball]

For the life of me I can't see what Hillary has done to warrant all this anger towards her. Its like people are putting Trumps real actions up against conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Now we have people pushing the conspiracy that Clinton is stealing the election without any REAL proof. Its an echo chamber of misinformation.

You must be an avid viewer of CNN or an active member of CTR.

A) Podesta emails are real.
B) New FBI emails are real.
C) Foreign Government funding is real.
D) Hillary's campaign having paying violent instigators with the intent to blame Bern/Trump is real and verified by her own website is real.
E)

Watch on YouTube

F) (RELEASED TODAY PART II)

Watch on YouTube

Seriously, what else do you want as proof?

I don't know, an actual report from a non-nut. I don't watch CNN. How about Washington Post, NY Times, the AP, Bloomberg, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - you know any of the 100s of reputable news sources that don't publish on youtube. I'd even take FOX at this point.

My emails are "real" too. That isn't evidence of wrongdoing. A bunch of comments taken out of context aren't evidence of wrongdoing. Especially when they can come from a person who has been demonstrated to have produced fake videos on multiple occasions.

One big problem in our country is the breakdown of intellectual authority. Some people would rather believe a guy on the internet as opposed to the 50 or so reputable media organizations we have. People will believe there own cousin about global warming before they believe scientists. I love the internet, but one thing it has done it has turned facts into opinions and conspiracies into facts. Your desire for this stuff to be true, doesn't make it so.

I'm with TeK on this. Everybody needs to take a step back from their ideology and agendas and actually listen to the words on the videos. Side note: why is partial video evidence of police shootings enough to incite riots immediately, but videos exposing political corruption are brushed under the rug and dismissed???

As ugly as this election cycle is, there may be a glimmer of hope. Social media and cameras everywhere should make it more difficult for bad people to get away with bad things. The media is in bed (literally look at the connections between execs at news places and politicians) with the government. They cannot be trusted to deliver honest, unbiased NEWS. However, as society grows more skeptical of the media, we'll get more information from each other which is harder to contain and control (this is good, but also has it's dangers). Sorting through all this for the truth will be a nightmare, but at least the truth will be out there.

[TeK]

You must be an avid viewer of CNN or an active member of CTR.

A) Podesta emails are real.
B) New FBI emails are real.
C) Foreign Government funding is real.
D) Hillary's campaign having paying violent instigators with the intent to blame Bern/Trump is real and verified by her own website is real.
E)

Watch on YouTube

F) (RELEASED TODAY PART II)

Watch on YouTube

Seriously, what else do you want as proof?

I don't know, an actual report from a non-nut. I don't watch CNN. How about Washington Post, NY Times, the AP, Bloomberg, MSNBC, ABC, CBS - you know any of the 100s of reputable news sources that don't publish on youtube. I'd even take FOX at this point.

My emails are "real" too. That isn't evidence of wrongdoing. A bunch of comments taken out of context aren't evidence of wrongdoing. Especially when they can come from a person who has been demonstrated to have produced fake videos on multiple occasions.

One big problem in our country is the breakdown of intellectual authority. Some people would rather believe a guy on the internet as opposed to the 50 or so reputable media organizations we have. People will believe there own cousin about global warming before they believe scientists. I love the internet, but one thing it has done it has turned facts into opinions and conspiracies into facts. Your desire for this stuff to be true, doesn't make it so.

Yeah...you don't have to be pro-Hillary or anti-Trump or whatever else....But, one needs to look at facts and analyze where they come from. The conspiracy theorists/followers are not only creating/believing in crap but are also getting very agitated/angry about it. That's the scary part.

What part of these videos is a conspiracy theory though?

[TeK]

Hannity is covering it. So is O'Reilly. Rosen is covering it.

O'keefe just said CNN reached out to him to cover it...

So we're still in the "this is fake and a conspiracy theory" boat?

This just in, looks like Bob Creamer just got fired/resigned. Damage control much?!

EDIT: Hell must have frozen over...

[ozbull]

You must be an avid viewer of CNN or an active member of CTR.

A) Podesta emails are real.
B) New FBI emails are real.
C) Foreign Government funding is real.
D) Hillary's campaign having paying violent instigators with the intent to blame Bern/Trump is real and verified by her own website is real.
E)

Watch on YouTube

F) (RELEASED TODAY PART II)

Watch on YouTube

Seriously, what else do you want as proof?

What more do people want as proof?

What about actual proof, actual quotes from people willing to put their name to them, rather then a journalist talking with people off-camera, in conversations that could easily be edited and taken out of context?

You don't think that if any of this was factual, real and possible, that any other respectable journalist in the country wouldn't plant it on the front page as the biggest story in American history? You think that every single skilled and journalist with integrity is part of Clinton's 'conspiracy'?

And why do the Democrats need to rig an election that they're leading in every poll?

Or, are the polls, run by independent organisations, in on the conspiracy too?

None of it makes any sense. None of it.

You're being mislead and you're hatred and mis-trust of Hillary is leading you to places, reason and logic that will be difficult to come back from.

This is an actual journalist. James O'Keefe is a real, reputable journalist. This isnt Bobby Bridges, undercover reporter reporting from his mom's basement.

How is this not factual, real or possible? You have the ACTUAL members of these organization on video. One of them got fired yesterday.

TIme Warner is the 5th biggest contributor to Hillary's campaign. TW also owns CNN. Yes, I think a top down decision was made to not broadcast things like wikileaks etc. Why would TW not protect their investment? Fox news is covering O'Keefe's video.

I'm not sure why the democrats need to rig an election, but its fairly obvious its happening.

I guess im confused as to what you're confused about? What are you refuting from these videos? Its a VIDEO. How are you going to deny these things are happening? The video was spliced and edited to make Scott's mouth move precisely in the way to utter the words it does? Like what are you even saying?

James O'Keefe may be real, but he is in no way reputable outside of the very small circle of people that take what he does seriously.

Like I've been trying to say, if there was real, unmitigated merit to this story, the election would be over. Trump would be president.

Ask yourself, why does every single other reputable journalist and news source not run this, the biggest story in American political history? Why would they ignore this video and its ramifications?

Do you think that every single journalist, every editor, every single producer, is in on this?

Can you imagine that meeting?

Clintons: "I'd like to thank everyone for coming. The equation here is simple. Please ignore my electoral fraud so we don't get the orange guy as president. I'll promise a higher journalist wage for everyone and no nuclear war."

Journalists: "Sure thing, madame President... muahahahahahahaha. "

And to top it off, you're not sure why democrats would need to rig an election, but, in the same breath, you think it's obvious it's happening?

Sigh.

[Jo Jo English]

Again, I haven't watched the videos yet, so I won't speak to their validity, but O'Reilly and Hannity covered the ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos too and those were biased, debunked garbage.

Hannity and O'Reilly taking up your cause isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of truth.

For what it's worth.

[ozbull]

Hannity is covering it. So is O'Reilly. Rosen is covering it.

O'keefe just said CNN reached out to him to cover it...

So we're still in the "this is fake and a conspiracy theory" boat?

This just in, looks like Bob Creamer just got fired/resigned. Damage control much?!

EDIT: Hell must have frozen over...

Pardon me, Hannity and O'Reilly reported it - you've got me there - those two bastions of journalism.

I think it's best I leave this thread. It's not my country - I wish you all the very best.

Please don't riot or incite violence when Hillary wins. Peaceful democracy is really important all around the world.

[TeK]

Hannity is covering it. So is O'Reilly. Rosen is covering it.

O'keefe just said CNN reached out to him to cover it...

So we're still in the "this is fake and a conspiracy theory" boat?

This just in, looks like Bob Creamer just got fired/resigned. Damage control much?!

EDIT: Hell must have frozen over...

Pardon me, Hannity and O'Reilly reported it - you've got me there - those two bastions of journalism.

I think it's best I leave this thread. It's not my country - I wish you all the very best.

Please don't riot or incite violence when Hillary wins. Peaceful democracy is really important all around the world.

You literally replied to an image of CNN reporting it...

[TeK]

Again, I haven't watched the videos yet, so I won't speak to their validity, but O'Reilly and Hannity covered the ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos too and those were biased, debunked garbage.

Hannity and O'Reilly taking up your cause isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of truth.

For what it's worth.

Please find the time to view the videos, and let me know what could be faked/biased/misconstrued in the footage.

Not trolling. Genuinely, enlighten me with specifics.

[ozbull]

Again, I haven't watched the videos yet, so I won't speak to their validity, but O'Reilly and Hannity covered the ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos too and those were biased, debunked garbage.

Hannity and O'Reilly taking up your cause isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of truth.

For what it's worth.

Please find the time to view the videos, and let me know what could be faked/biased/misconstrued in the footage.

Not trolling. Genuinely, enlighten me with specifics.

You're right man - it all makes sense now.

A couple of operatives in the democratic party were caught on camera discussing how electorate fraud could be possible.

It's all true. Those people in that video represent the entire Democratic party. They represent the Clintons.

They represent the Obamas.

It's all been fixed. Trump is 100% right.

We shouldn't look at this as a few idiots being sucked in by a sham journalist on camera - we should look at this as the final piece of the puzzle. Thanks for enlightening us.

Forget reason, forget logic, forget motive, forget everything - CNN is now reporting these guys got fired - that's all the confirmation I need that this the country-wide epidemic we've all been fearing.

[TeK]

Again, I haven't watched the videos yet, so I won't speak to their validity, but O'Reilly and Hannity covered the ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos too and those were biased, debunked garbage.

Hannity and O'Reilly taking up your cause isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of truth.

For what it's worth.

Please find the time to view the videos, and let me know what could be faked/biased/misconstrued in the footage.

Not trolling. Genuinely, enlighten me with specifics.

You're right man - it all makes sense now.

A couple of operatives in the democratic party were caught on camera discussing how electorate fraud could be possible.

It's all true. Those people in that video represent the entire Democratic party. They represent the Clintons.

They represent the Obamas.

It's all been fixed. Trump is 100% right.

We shouldn't look at this as a few idiots being sucked in by a sham journalist on camera - we should look at this as the final piece of the puzzle. Thanks for enlightening us.

Forget reason, forget logic, forget motive, forget everything - CNN is now reporting these guys got fired - that's all the confirmation I need that this the country-wide epidemic we've all been fearing.

Finally! #staywoke

[RedBulls23]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/

James O’Keefe has a clear bias when "reporting" his stories. And there is proof that he twists things around to fit his agenda.

I guess we will soon find out how "accurate" this new video is once more investigation is done.

[DuckIII]

James O'Keefe has an established reputation of editing his videos to misrepresent the context and truth. He's not a journalist, he's an extreme conservative with an agenda.

What's more, I wouldn't be surprised if some rogue Democrats did do something like this. But them saying they were in contact with the DNC and Clinton and had their blessing isn't actual evidence that it actually happened. One conspirator describing a conspiracy isn't credible. That is why in a court of law you are required to have independent corroboration to even allow the conspirator's testimony.

[TeK]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/

James O’Keefe has a clear bias when "reporting" his stories. And there is proof that he twists things around to fit his agenda.

I guess we will soon find out how "accurate" this new video is once more investigation is done.

I get it. But how would thisvideo be twisted/skewed when it's clear dialogue? How can this be edited w/ bias?

These people are blatantly admitting to bird-dogging trump rallies to ensight anger/violence. They clearly admitted to the chicago/AZ events. These names are VERIFIED on DNC payroll which is publically posted on their website.

I just don't understand what is skewed in these videos?

[ozbull]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/

James O’Keefe has a clear bias when "reporting" his stories. And there is proof that he twists things around to fit his agenda.

I guess we will soon find out how "accurate" this new video is once more investigation is done.

I get it. But how would thisvideo be twisted/skewed when it's clear dialogue? How can this be edited w/ bias?

These people are blatantly admitting to bird-dogging trump rallies to ensight anger/violence. They clearly admitted to the chicago/AZ events. These names are VERIFIED on DNC payroll which is publically posted on their website.

I just don't understand what is skewed in these videos?

Do you understand the concept of editing?

Of getting people to say something out of context?

I mean, you seem like a reasonable person. At this rate I'm trying to work out if you're intentionally ignoring what people are trying to help you with, or if you honestly can't fathom it.

[TeK]

http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/

James O’Keefe has a clear bias when "reporting" his stories. And there is proof that he twists things around to fit his agenda.

I guess we will soon find out how "accurate" this new video is once more investigation is done.

I get it. But how would thisvideo be twisted/skewed when it's clear dialogue? How can this be edited w/ bias?

These people are blatantly admitting to bird-dogging trump rallies to ensight anger/violence. They clearly admitted to the chicago/AZ events. These names are VERIFIED on DNC payroll which is publically posted on their website.

I just don't understand what is skewed in these videos?

Do you understand the concept of editing?

Of getting people to say something out of context?

I mean, you seem like a reasonable person. At this rate I'm trying to work out if you're intentionally ignoring what people are trying to help you with, or if you honestly can't fathom it.

I genuinely don't get what you're saying. What lead in question could there possibly have been edited out to to conjure up a response of "Did you see what happened in Chicago, that was us" or "You know the people who shut down the highway in AZ? That was us."

Said by Zulema Rodriguez. The same Zulema Rodriguez who is ON THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN"S PAYROLL (pulled from Federal Elections Committee's website).

Where is the conspiracy here? What is edited? Seriously, what are you trying to say?



Not to mention Robert Creamer, who resigned from his position today based on these videos, visited the White House to meet with Obama over 300 times since 2009 sourced FROM THE OFFICIAL WH.gov WEBSITE. These are not "rogue democrats" as some of you are saying.

[League Circles]

James O'Keefe has an established reputation of editing his videos to misrepresent the context and truth. He's not a journalist, he's an extreme conservative with an agenda.

What's more, I wouldn't be surprised if some rogue Democrats did do something like this. But them saying they were in contact with the DNC and Clinton and had their blessing isn't actual evidence that it actually happened. One conspirator describing a conspiracy isn't credible. That is why in a court of law you are required to have independent corroboration to even allow the conspirator's testimony.

This is pretty much how I feel. I'm not a democrat (or republican), and never heard of james o keefe and didn't really know anything about this story before I clicked on the video. It wasn't long at all before the aroma of horse **** made its way into my nose and I knew I was being misled in one way or another.

Another possibility, in addition to foval or whoever being a fringe "democrat" acting without the knowledge of anyone actually in the democratic party or clinton campaign, is that he may be perhaps like a Bernie supporter trying to sabotage the dems. This o keefe and foval could both be full of ****, on different sides.

There are a number of things that lift that fragrance deep into your nose. One, IMO, is that the lengths to which he was implying/claiming they go to to commit voter fraud are just illogical. Like, renting and buying used cars for individual people to cross state lines and vote? Really? For one damn vote they're gonna spend that much money? How many people are willing and able to commit their time to do this? 7 people? 0 people? 36 people? Certainly not enough to decide an election. And anyone with a brain would know this. That's why foval probably isn't very smart. He might actually be spending all the little money he has to get, say, 14 people to vote illegally in other states. Congrats bro!

Not to mention, it's not like you just show up and vote. You need to register. It's not a slam dunk.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.

[The 6ft Hurdle]

I get it. But how would thisvideo be twisted/skewed when it's clear dialogue? How can this be edited w/ bias?

These people are blatantly admitting to bird-dogging trump rallies to ensight anger/violence. They clearly admitted to the chicago/AZ events. These names are VERIFIED on DNC payroll which is publically posted on their website.

I just don't understand what is skewed in these videos?

Do you understand the concept of editing?

Of getting people to say something out of context?

I mean, you seem like a reasonable person. At this rate I'm trying to work out if you're intentionally ignoring what people are trying to help you with, or if you honestly can't fathom it.

I genuinely don't get what you're saying. What lead in question could there possibly have been edited out to to conjure up a response of "Did you see what happened in Chicago, that was us" or "You know the people who shut down the highway in AZ? That was us."

Said by Zulema Rodriguez. The same Zulema Rodriguez who is ON THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN"S PAYROLL (pulled from Federal Elections Committee's website).

Where is the conspiracy here? What is edited? Seriously, what are you trying to say?



Not to mention Robert Creamer, who resigned from his position today based on these videos, visited the White House to meet with Obama over 300 times since 2009 sourced FROM THE OFFICIAL WH.gov WEBSITE. These are not "rogue democrats" as some of you are saying.

The main point of the article is that it takes time to vet the truth.

They bring up that incident of his with ACORN where the press ran with this narrative that ACORN helps pimps and prostitutes --- this effectively damaged the organization. Only later did the press admit mistakes, but the damage was already done.

He doesn't care about exposing truth as much as he does hoping he appeals to your base instincts and that you immediately jump to conclusions...

[TimRobbins]

When you have free markets, the wealth spreads around and everybody gets to enjoy it.

[Citation Needed]

Adam Smith/Milton Friedman? This is basic "invisible hand".
Just notice "everybody gets to enjoy" does not mean "equally".