Democratic operatives ON RECORD boasting they have used low info and mentally disabled plants to disrupt Trump rallies, incite violence, falsely accuse Trump supporters attending in Chicago and elsewhere.
This is on tape and all over the internet.
How many MSM sources have covered this criminal activity : ZERO
No news coverage by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN . Fox mentioned it yesterday and will be on Hannity tonite.
[Edited on 10/18/2016 by OriginalGoober]
LOL!!! If you believe this then you are beyond help. May god have mercy on your soul. Please get out more. Human interaction is a good thing.
This footage is extremely troubling, (even die hard democratic progressives have said this )and you are making light of it.
ha ha ha ha. You are getting desperate. It is kind of pathetic.
Goob, you fall for every little piece of propaganda you see. Seriously, look at this stuff with an open mind and figure out how to separate the real from the BS.
Shattuck: Dangerous, deplorable Democrats ones we really need to worry about
Tom Shattuck Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Boston Herald
It’s nonstop: Media types everywhere are foaming at the mouth with dire warnings of violence in the streets if Donald Trump loses this election.
The truth is, there is much more likely to be trouble if Trump wins.
The Democratic party has violence in its DNA, as we learned yesterday thanks to an explosive new undercover video from multimedia journalist James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, the same folks behind those Planned Parenthood stings.
O’Keefe secretly videotaped conversations with a handful of Clinton campaign and DNC operatives for a video series called “Rigging the Election.” Here’s what we’ve learned:
Dems mobilize troublemakers at each and every Trump/Pence appearance to try to agitate the crowd — they call it “bird-dogging.” That jibes with a WikiLeaks email of Clinton campaign spokesman Robbie Mooks writing about “an opportunity to bird-dog” in regards to immigration.
One operative named Scott Foval was all too happy to brag about how the bird-dogging goes down.
“Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies. We’re starting anarchy here.”
And who does the actual rabble-rousing?
“We have mentally ill people that we pay to do (expletive),” Foval bragged.
That might strike some as unseemly, but Foval spoke to that: “It doesn’t matter what the legal and ethics people say, we need to win this (expletive).”
Not to be outdone, another operative named Aaron Black mused about some of his big successes: “So the Chicago protest when they shut all that — that was us.”
As a result of that operation, you may recall, two police officers were injured, streets were closed and a handful of arrests were made. It was a good day for the Democrats and the next morning they were rewarded by The New York Times with this headline:
“Donald Trump’s Rally in Chicago Canceled After Violent Scuffles.”
Paid Democratic operatives plan and create the violence and the complicit press covers it as if it is a natural byproduct of Trump’s “hateful” campaign.
The video closes with a common theme heard deep inside Hillary’s campaign these days: Americans are terrible. Foul-mouthed Democrat Scott Foval put it like this: “So I have to be really honest. Iowa is a difficult case because it’s a 50-50 state and honestly half the state is racist as (expletive). Wisconsin is just as bad.”
Look for the media to brush off — or outright ignore — Project Veritas’ video, just as they did with the Planned Parenthood vids. The mainstream media have stopped pretending to be stewards of the truth and are now just activists working for the public relations arm of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
They’ll sit on their panels and pretend to empathize and say things like, “We should be talking about the fact that a GOP office was firebombed in North Carolina, but we’re hearing that Donald Trump ate all the Kit Kats from his son Barron’s Halloween bucket.”
Democrats — the party of anarchy.
Per the goob "Democratic operatives ON RECORD boasting they have used low info and mentally disabled plants to disrupt Trump rallies, incite violence, falsely accuse Trump supporters attending in Chicago and elsewhere."
Response - The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself. We've all watched his rallies and the venom he has spewed. He even suggested he'd pay for legal bills. One of his favorite lines - "Get 'em out of here".
Now he's doing it again with all of his rigged election lies. Have you seen the interviews with those who swallow his venom. They've suggested acting on his rhetoric.
MSM has no choice - story is all over the internet and cannot be ignored. CNN needed to wait until the WHite House passed out the spin notes on this. Trump pokes fun at a disabled reporter and here we have the disabled conned, and manipulated by pure evil. Much, much worse.
[Edited on 10/18/2016 by OriginalGoober]
Shattuck: Dangerous, deplorable Democrats ones we really need to worry about
Tom Shattuck Tuesday, October 18, 2016Boston Herald
It’s nonstop: Media types everywhere are foaming at the mouth with dire warnings of violence in the streets if Donald Trump loses this election.
The truth is, there is much more likely to be trouble if Trump wins.
The Democratic party has violence in its DNA, as we learned yesterday thanks to an explosive new undercover video from multimedia journalist James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, the same folks behind those Planned Parenthood stings.
O’Keefe secretly videotaped conversations with a handful of Clinton campaign and DNC operatives for a video series called “Rigging the Election.” Here’s what we’ve learned:
Dems mobilize troublemakers at each and every Trump/Pence appearance to try to agitate the crowd — they call it “bird-dogging.” That jibes with a WikiLeaks email of Clinton campaign spokesman Robbie Mooks writing about “an opportunity to bird-dog” in regards to immigration.
One operative named Scott Foval was all too happy to brag about how the bird-dogging goes down.
“Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies. We’re starting anarchy here.”
And who does the actual rabble-rousing?
“We have mentally ill people that we pay to do (expletive),” Foval bragged.
That might strike some as unseemly, but Foval spoke to that: “It doesn’t matter what the legal and ethics people say, we need to win this (expletive).”
Not to be outdone, another operative named Aaron Black mused about some of his big successes: “So the Chicago protest when they shut all that — that was us.”
As a result of that operation, you may recall, two police officers were injured, streets were closed and a handful of arrests were made. It was a good day for the Democrats and the next morning they were rewarded by The New York Times with this headline:
“Donald Trump’s Rally in Chicago Canceled After Violent Scuffles.”
Paid Democratic operatives plan and create the violence and the complicit press covers it as if it is a natural byproduct of Trump’s “hateful” campaign.
The video closes with a common theme heard deep inside Hillary’s campaign these days: Americans are terrible. Foul-mouthed Democrat Scott Foval put it like this: “So I have to be really honest. Iowa is a difficult case because it’s a 50-50 state and honestly half the state is racist as (expletive). Wisconsin is just as bad.”
Look for the media to brush off — or outright ignore — Project Veritas’ video, just as they did with the Planned Parenthood vids. The mainstream media have stopped pretending to be stewards of the truth and are now just activists working for the public relations arm of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
They’ll sit on their panels and pretend to empathize and say things like, “We should be talking about the fact that a GOP office was firebombed in North Carolina, but we’re hearing that Donald Trump ate all the Kit Kats from his son Barron’s Halloween bucket.”
Democrats — the party of anarchy.
Tom Shattuck. LOL. Go to his page on the Boston Herald web page and look at the crazy unsubstantiated crap he spews. I'll get you started
http://www.bostonherald.com/users/tom_shattuck
Goob, if you don't like biased media, you cannot use this guys words for anything.
[Edited on 10/19/2016 by jkeller]
ha ha ha ha. You are getting desperate. It is kind of pathetic.
What seems pretty desperate is having to employ this kind of tactic.
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, if this website, alloak, and Goober say it's true, it must be. Forget every major daily newspaper in the country - they are all part of the conspiracy!!!!
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives, I'll give you that much!
Well, if this website, alloak, and Goober say it's true, it must be.
Not to mention people being caught on tape bragging about it.
Well, if this website, alloak, and Goober say it's true, it must be.
Not to mention people being caught on tape bragging about it.
To James O’Keefe no less, defender of truth. 😮
Well, if this website, alloak, and Goober say it's true, it must be.
Not to mention people being caught on tape bragging about it.
To James O’Keefe no less, defender of truth. 😮
😛
Using campaign funds to incite violence and disrupt political events of your opponent. Forget the lack of ethics involved, but one must question the potential illegality of such a tactic.
Maybe the FBI will look into this and launch an investi........Oh, never mind.
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Along with people like O'Keefe (ad referenced at the snopes link above), this is the game Trump and his team plays with lie after lie after lie, and his followers buy in to his false narratives without questioning any of it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
Using campaign funds to incite violence and disrupt political events of your opponent. Forget the lack of ethics involved, but one must question the potential illegality of such a tactic.
Believing a source, Project Veritas, that has already been proven to be misleading at the least, and total re-edited bullsh1t at the worst, is wasting everyone's time, especially your own. Investigate the source.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
/a>
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions.
The framing and style of videos created by James O'Keefe is well known due to his 2009 "sting" in which he and accomplice Hannah Giles visited ACORN offices and pretended to be seeking advice on how to run an illegal business that included the use of underage girls in the sex trade. The resulting videos — which were edited to create the impression that O'Keefe and Giles had spoken to ACORN representatives while dressed as a pimp and prostitute — dealt that organization a mortal blow before reports publicizing the deception in O'Keefe's videos came to light:
How quickly things seem to fall apart when James O’Keefe is the person who put them together.
O’Keefe’s incriminating ACORN video was shown to have been heavily edited — neither he nor Hannah Giles were actually in pimp and prostitute get-up when they spoke to ACORN employees, for example — and no criminal prosecutions of ACORN followed. While not letting ACORN off the hook for showing “terrible judgment” in the video, California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”
Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. Folkenflik reviewed the two tapes himself, along with some NPR colleagues and outsiders like The Blaze’s editor-in-chief Scott Baker and Poynter’s Al Tompkins. They home in on many of the same problems The Blaze pointed out. And they basically come to the same conclusion: the tape is still a problem, but the impression it leaves is different.
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.”
Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review:
From where might we have learned such a lesson? From video scandals past. Think ACORN and think Shirley Sherrod: job- and organization-crippling scandals in which the media blindly aided and abetted. Note too that O’Keefe is a political point-scorer, and here he is scoring from a soft-target.
We knew all of this, and yet few of us slowed down. Including the NPR brass.
It is telling that The Blaze was the first to point out O’Keefe’s context-stripping editing and that its report came out two days after O’Keefe’s video release. (And, yes, we at CJR should have been doing just as The Blaze did, searching for the discrepancies they found.) It’s telling because, as The Blaze showed, it takes time to vet a source.
We can only hope that, next time, the order in which this scandal and others like it have unfolded — headlines and drama first; reporting and vetting later — is reversed. Given the pattern that just repeated itself, we’re not optimistic.
The Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) organization also regularly covered O'Keefe's efforts in 2011 and 2012, lamenting how often the details of the purported stings are misreported before being thoroughly investigated:
USA Today has a long piece by Martha Moore about video hoax artist James O’Keefe’s NPR project. The article does a pretty good job of running down the deceptions in O’Keefe’s video. That’s good. This, however, is not:
... The sting’s impact was magnified by the quick dissemination-without-scrutiny that is a hallmark of Internet-driven media.
O’Keefe’s video has nothing to do with muckraking. And please don’t blame the Internet for the fact that journalists apparently can’t be bothered to care whether a source is reliable.
From NBC Nightly News, courtesy of reporter Lisa Myers:
We last saw O’Keefe wearing a fur coat and playing a pimp when he managed to take down the liberal group ACORN.
No we didn’t ... As should be well-known by now, O’Keefe used footage of himself wearing a “pimp” costume in his ACORN videos — but didn’t wear the ridiculous costume during his “undercover stings.” Media accounts acted as though he did, though — it took a lot of effort to get the New York Times to finally admit its errors on this count.
If reporters don’t know these facts, they’re bound to get fooled by O’Keefe again.
After his fraudulent ACORN videos, the lesson media should have learned about right-wing “citizen journalist” James O’Keefe is not to trust him. But they didn’t, so here we are with his NPR stunt, which allegedly shows NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller saying mean things about the Tea Party in a meeting with phony Muslim Brotherhood-connected donors.
But it appears that, once again, O’Keefe’s videos are not be what they seem. The first serious questions about them were raised on (I swear!) The Blaze, a Glenn Beck-affiliated website. Over there, Scott Baker pointed to a few problems. In one part of the video, NPR‘s Schiller seems to laugh about the phony Muslim group’s position on Sharia law. Baker says it’s out of context.
NPR has done at least two reports on the video. It’s not quite a Shirley Sherrod moment — where the right-wing video was edited to totally turn her message around — but it’s clear that things aren’t exactly what they first seemed. O’Keefe’s history should give media outlets serious reservations about taking him at face value on anything ... which goes to show you that the argument that the media is tilted to the left remains totally unconvincing.
As Exhibit A, look at James O’Keefe, who famously and proudly passed off his partner as a prostitute while secretly videotaping ACORN staffers. Who in the debate over O’Keefe’s work took the position that because the colleague was not actually a prostitute, the entire project was unethical and therefore all of his videotapes should be ignored? The actual objection to O’Keefe’s work was that he deceived the public — misleadingly editing his footage to create false impressions, including the popular delusion that O’Keefe had gone into ACORN offices wearing an outlandish Superfly costume. Nevertheless, he got overwhelmingly positive coverage from right-wing and centrist news outlets alike, with the result that his mendacious reporting had the successful result of helping to bring ACORN down.
In a 2011 op-ed, a Washington Post writer laid out the reasons why videos released by Project Veritas should initially sound numerous ethical alarms:
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie.
Interest in the four current Project Veritas videos has run high on social media. Politico addressed them from the perspective of legality, such as whether Project Veritas violated the law in Florida by ostensibly not adhering to the state's wiretapping laws. The article also included a statement from Florida State Democratic Party spokesman Max Steele regarding the allegations about voter registrations:
According to Max Steele, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party, Mao or anyone else would lose their jobs for destroying voter-registration forms.
"Sexual assault and harassment, and destruction of voter registration forms, are serious offenses,” Steele said in a written statement. “There is no question that a staff member who engaged in this kind of behavior would be immediately terminated, and we are investigating the claims. Remarks like these do not represent the Florida Democratic Party and are completely inappropriate."
The video neither shows nor alleges that anyone affiliated with Clinton’s campaign actually destroyed any forms. Florida Democrats are surpassing Republicans in signing up voters. The state party has submitted 503,000 voter registration forms for this election; the state Republican Party only 60,000. The Florida Democratic Party said it trains volunteers on proper handling of the registration forms and tracks the documents to make sure none is destroyed in violation of state law.
Under state law, a “person may not knowingly destroy, mutilate, or deface a voter registration form or election ballot or obstruct or delay the delivery of a voter registration form or election ballot.” The third-degree felony carries a maximum five-year-prison term and $5,000 fine.
However, the video itself could constitute a third-degree felony on the part of Project Veritas because of Florida’s law that requires consent before someone is recorded. A person must give explicit consent or give “implied consent” by continuing to talk after being told he or she is being recorded.
As the piece noted, the "rigging" clip and claims of voter registration form destruction did not stem from activity surreptitiously recorded by Project Veritas. Instead, the viral video simply depicts an operative of the organization attempting to bait campaign workers into "admitting" they would tolerate such behavior. And as with the video involving Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin, what Project Veritas' targets appeared to be doing was going along with leading questions rather than disputing them.
Schulkin himself provided comment to that effect, telling the New York Post that he had played along with a young woman he described as a "nuisance":
The videographer asked point-blank, “You think they should have voter ID in New York?”
Schulkin responded, “Voters? Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud.”
Schulkin defended his videotaped remarks, with slight revisions.
“I should have said ‘potential fraud’ instead of ‘fraud,’” he said.
But he reiterated his support for a voter ID requirement.
He recalled a woman asking him a lot of questions the night he was recorded.
“She was like a nuisance. I was just trying to placate her,” he said.
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). A May 2016 New Yorker article about that aborted sting examined the forces behind Project Veritas and the diminishing impact of deceptive videos:
Many O’Keefe operations, however, have fallen flat, including his repeated efforts to prove that voter-identity fraud is pervasive. “It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. A sting aimed at Hillary Clinton was considered especially feeble. Veritas operatives persuaded a staffer at a rally to accept a Canadian citizen’s money in exchange for a Hillary T-shirt — a petty violation of the ban on foreign political contributions. Brian Fallon, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, says, “Project Veritas has been repeatedly caught trying to commit fraud, falsify identities, and break campaign-finance law. It is not surprising, given that their founder has already been convicted for efforts like this.”
It may be that the shock value of such exposés is diminishing. A recent series of sting videos against Planned Parenthood, created by a group called the Center for Medical Progress, involved deceptions so devious — including an attempt by undercover operatives to buy fetal tissue — that the campaign backfired. Pro-choice activists united in anger at the sting’s perpetrators, and a Texas grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing and indicted the C.M.P.
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage
absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's work, somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions."
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's work, somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions."
Apparently you're not going to answer.
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's work, somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions."
Apparently you're not going to answer.
I just did. What don't you understand?
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's work, somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions."
Apparently you're not going to answer.
I just did. What don't you understand?
Why you attempt to explain this away. I always viewed you as one of the few somewhat objective non-Conservatives here.
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's work, somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions."
Apparently you're not going to answer.
I just did. What don't you understand?
Why you attempt to explain this away. I always viewed you as one of the few somewhat objective non-Conservatives here.
Apparently you're not going to answer.
If someone released mice into a restaurant, then went on a crusade telling people the place was unsanitary, would context matter? Really?
Was context called into question with regard to the Trump womanizer tapes? Hell no, it NEVER is when a non-Liberal is involved. Ever.
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's work, somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions."
Apparently you're not going to answer.
I just did. What don't you understand?
Why you attempt to explain this away. I always viewed you as one of the few somewhat objective non-Conservatives here.
Apparently you're not going to answer.
I just did. What don't you understand?
The biggest catalyst for inciting violence is Trump, himself.
You've bought into a false narrative. DNC operatives were paid to provoke Trump supporters and to incite violence at his rallies. When people are provoked they tend to react.
Well, you certainly have proven yourself over and over again to be an expert and buying into false narratives
What, like the War on Women?
More like what we are talking about in this thread...
http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/
"[James O'Keefe's] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible."
Absent of context? What possible context could be furnished to make this matter anywhere close to being above board?
"The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's work, somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions."
Apparently you're not going to answer.
I just did. What don't you understand?
Why you attempt to explain this away. I always viewed you as one of the few somewhat objective non-Conservatives here.
Apparently you're not going to answer.
I just did. What don't you understand?
Actually, you didn't.