And it's really ridiculous that you guys discount it on no basis other than "naaahhhh". Real compelling stuff there. I don't think the voter fraud is so widespread that it totally shapes elections(but Bernie/Hillary was close enough that it is legit question if it decided the outcome), and the rules are much more straightforward in the general election. Most of what Trump has been bitching about is the media, which is obvious. I don't think his rhetoric has been appropriate, but that's Trump for you. No offense Audrey and Gravy, but it really seems like you'll discount anything regarding Hillary and then when there's concrete proof for the other shady shit she'd done you'll just shrug it off as acceptable, no matter how corrupt or shameless. It's the whole "It's ok when our guy does it" so long as we win. I'm not 100% on the voter fraud, but when the commissioner says it's happening and the response is to try to get him to step down rather than look into it, just shouting CONSPIRACY or saying "look look, a republican site posted about it" isn't much of anything other than a knee jerk reaction. Hillary has done enough to disqualify her for office by any sensible ethical standards. The voter fraud would just be another in her laundry list. Did you read what was actually in the wikileaks? I love this one. Here's proof of Hillary's corruption. "Did it talk about the moon landing!? Ha! "
I figure the MSM isn't picking up on it yet because, one it's James O'Keefe, two, secretly video taping people in general but particularly in context of election work has to be dicey as fuck legally and they'd probably want to cover their asses or ignore it all together to avoid any legal ramifications. Beyond that, this isn't some day volunteer ACORN worker being tricked into saying something unflattering or some ridiculous conspiracy theory stretch from a single word on an email. This is high level campaign operatives stating in not unclear terms pretty damning claims, acting as Super PAC campaign go betweens, hiring agent provocateurs for some of the bigger media highlights of violence which includes homeless and mentally ill. Care to actually address that instead of obfuscating about James O'Keefe? End's justify the means because Trump? Hell in the late 90's in DC any early 20's intern willing to have relationships with their married boss should have watched their step around Hillary. Ill tell you what I do know, it certainly wasn't the serial attacker that had already attacked multiple women in the same park in the same exact fashion, amiright?
I feel very comfortable discounting YouTube videos akin to LiveAction hits and Loose Change. This has happened a bunch of times on this board where the same people who will (fairly!) call out someone daring to link to, like, a CNN article for not acknowledging its bias and will then post one of these masturbatory conspiracy theory propaganda videos and declare it as inarguable evidence. I'm not sure what concrete proof you're talking about but as I've already said when there's actual primary sources to look at I read them and the scandals that are built out of them are so stretched or distorted or completely fabricated or either naively or willfully ignorant. I can see why some of them would piss off someone with opposing political views to her, but that doesn't apply to me. I have been trying, really trying, to see if the Clinton Is A Scandal Machine argument has any weight since Bernie entered the race - I wouldn't have read all goddamn 90 pages of the Goldman Sachs speeches if I wasn't - and I just. Don't. Buy it.
CONSPIRACY. OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE. There, now run away in shame. That sums up your answer to everything in a nutshell. Evidence Schmvidence. Especially with what you're referencing, which couldn't have possibly been clearer.
Two things, one, it should be independantly verified, two, this should be done because of the source. Im willing to admit this type of video could be taking conversations out of context. From the undercover video shown alone, it seems a lot harder for me to say that it was, as opposed to those Planned Parenthood hatchet jobs, though. It's not set in stone concrete but it comes off a whole lot worse then any of those ACORN videos did in terms of content. Did you listen to the campaign operatives comments? A lot more black and white than I'd be willing to write off simply because its James O'keefe. Again I hope someone in the press does their due dilligence on this, since that's the press' job. My whole point isn't to blame Clinton either. More that what the comments imply, and if proven to be true, justify, the anger and resentment the electorate feels towards the power structure involved in our modern political process. It cuts both ways and rest assured there are plenty of people on the right pissed at the RNCs rule changes that discourages non establishment candidates, like Ron Paul, from being competative. It is just frustrating to hear people write this stuff off because they are so tribal about everything.
I've watched the video as well. Despite a clearly biased approach with poor editing and one sentence clips that obviously don't tell the whole story, it's clear that there are Democrats who are mobilizing unsavory tactics against Trump. However, it's a huge leap to infer that Clinton knows about it, or is orchestrating it. In the early moments of the video, a speaker asks "is Hillary aware of the work you do?" And "they tell Hillary what is going on?", to which the interviewee answers affirmatively. But this is so ambiguous as to be laughable. What work, exactly? Theaters an implication but no explicit statement. This goes both ways. White power groups support Trump- does that mean he coordinates or confines their actions? Of course not. I fully believe that the Democratic primaries were orchestrated and manipulated by Clinton, so it's not like I refuse to believe in biased grounds. I despise both Hillary and Trump. One clearly biased video proves nothing about Clintons involvement to me. Nor should it prove it to any of you.
A group saying they support someone's platform is not the same as a group claiming to be working in concert with someone/group directly.
It's not ridiculous at all. It's ridiculous that the video is being given SUPER SERIOUS CONSIDERATION when it comes from a known liar. Shouldn't the burden of proof here be on you? It's your source. You should prove it's legitimate. Even though you quietly admit it is just hearsay. How can you yell that Hillary is a liar where nothing can be believed and then post a video by James O'Keeffe? Nb: You're going to try and flip this on me and say, "well, how can you believe anything Hillary Clinton says?" She tells the truth more often than James O'Keeffe who made a name for himself by lying is my response. Most of what Trump has been bitching about the media, but it's not obvious that they are rigging it against him. They aren't ignoring things (I have seen everything you have mentioned covered in mainstream media--minus your ridiculous conspiracy video that like Audrey said wouldn't fly as a source for a middle school research paper). I'm sure you can find some evidence of the media being biased against Trump, so post some and we can look at it. Might be fun. And besides the media "rigging," he has gone out of his way to voter fraud. Look at his twitter feed where he explicitly mentions polling places. And he has given stump speeches saying that people should go to certain areas and watch. What neighborhoods do you think he means? What do you think his supporters understand? Do some take it as a clear sign to commit the crime of voter intimidation with non-white voters in mind? Yes. They do. Wouldn't these exact same arguments apply to you? What shameless/corrupt shit has Donald Trump said or done that you are willing to shrug off? How about this, when a tape comes out of Hillary Clinton saying that she walks up to men and grabs them by the dick, I will admit she is a terrible person and won't vote for her. A republican site didn't post this. James O'Keeffe did huuuuuuuuge fucking difference. I don't write people off for being Republicans. If I did I couldn't point to John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, et al. saying they won't vote for Trump. Again, if this isn't anything more than a bullshit conspiracy video why isn't Project Veritas doing some actual journalism and exposing this stuff? Why package it the way they did? Do you think they might just be putting bullshit together to get youtube hits from people who believe in democratic conspiracies? Yes, without a doubt. They sensationalize the shit out of it. They are all about smoke and mirrors, but can't clearly point to smoking guns. Why is that? Think hard about it. You can't blame me for looking at this and saying conspiracy when that is exactly what the video is alleging: widespread corruption across hundreds of individuals all doing the bidding of Hillary Clinton as she pulls the puppet strings. I have read some of the wikileaks. What is more believable A) Journalists, media, and smart, reasonable people everywhere have read this and thought hard about them and thought, "Yeah, this doesn't make Hillary look great, but it is all pretty standard political stuff." or B) Journalists, media, and smart, reasonable people everywhere are willfully ignoring ethical violations that should disqualify Hillary for being president C) People who hate Hillary Clinton are reading these same emails and are seeing TRUTH BOMBS THAT SHOULD SINK HER CAMPAIGN when they aren't that bad all in all. Again, you're acting like Audrey is alone in this when no one has been able to make an effective and reasonable case to anyone outside of the people who already hate Hillary. If it is so clear and the evidence is so damning why can't a better case be made? You just keep shouting, "You're not really paying attention!" And then posting James O'Keeffe videos. C'mon. Audrey has actually done a lot more work than I have in trying to see the case against Hillary. Well shouldn't you? I mean you're voting for a candidate whose political ascendancy was based on an outright lie. You're obsessed with people telling the truth and your candidate propagated a racist lie for years and never even apologized for it. Are you comfortable voting for a candidate who uses conspiracy theories to gin up support? I don't see how you could be with all of your anti-Hillary arguments. You can assault Hillary Clinton for not being a paragon of virtue all you fucking want. But it is childish to say, "omg Hillary is so evil and such a liar and so corrupt that I'm going to vote for Trump!" It defies all logic and reason. In fact this board has become a discussion that is so far outside of the mainstream it is hard to take it seriously. One side has seriously devolved into posting James O'Keeffe videos as evidence. Is this real life? It's hard to take seriously. I don't know of a single person making good arguments that Trump is a candidate worth voting for. And it's not that I'm closed off to hearing about it. It's not even this board, it is vociferous Trump supporters. Also, re a political party trying to incite violence. That is pretty fucking moving even, even more so paired with the Breitbart piece on the alt-right. Which I would argue is a fair primer since the CEO runs Trump's campaign. Here is a relevant quote: Isn't that paragraph just a little bit fucking scary?
As fucked up as a lot of what he says is, he does have a few little nuggets worth investigating and agreeing with. So does Hillary, for that matter. Part of this whole political scene these days is it's either all-in, or all-out... there's no room for any kind of concession, or actual discussion. It's like college football... you have your team, and that's all that matters... the other team must lose at all costs. It's fucked up.
Of course and as has been said, a lot of the voter fraud is hearsay, but it's not some jackass fabricating stories on a blog either. Hillary isn't an idiot and she's not going to do the dirty work herself. We probably won't have absolute proof unless she was stupid enough to discuss it in e-mails (not unlikely) and it emerges in another wikileak release. I'm sure some of it is just everyday partisans going beyond their limits as well. I find it telling that Audrey and Gravy jumped on that (which was more deflection than refutation anyway) and now it's all bullshit. Many Hillary scandals have been proven. The voter fraud is more like Wasserman Schultz being forced to step down from the DNC chair after her integrity was called into question over activity in favor of the Hillary campaign, and then immediately appointed to a chair position in Hillary's campaign. I can't 'prove' nefarious motivations, but you have to be a complete fucking moron not to question it. She's backed Hillary and Hillary looks after her own. She's had charges that were nothing more than dirty politics like the Benghazi case, but that doesn't exonerate her from a corrupt career. Which is really sad on issues like healthcare where the republicans have warmed substantially. The original Obamacare was much better, but got gutted to appease the republicans who have now done everything to make sure it fails. I don't like it, but try to make it work while it's what we have. Fucking insane. People are getting screwed every day from the health care policy we have in this country, but if a republican idea is picked up by the other side they try to ruin it immediately. This often goes both ways, like letting states keep lines closed from competition thanks to a campaign donation.
The source is the democratic commissioner of the board of elections. One of several posted on the last two pages... The only thing Audrey has responded to was the video (and she doesn't care about who the person talking is, or what they're saying, clearly), the rest has just been her talking about how much she's read and doesn't believe it. Cool story, doesn't mean a whole lot to me. A lot more than some, but if you've been following this election and think it's generally unbiased, and there isn't a a widespread anti-Trump message being propagated my dismissive comments toward you are quite accurate. This isn't something a 'source' proves as it's been a nonstop bombardment of misinformation, and lack of focus on Hillary. When Hillary is discussed the fact checking is often abysmal like that CNN story I posted last page. Frankly, I would expect any reasonably intelligent person to notice something so prevalent. I'm sorry man, but you've tried to refute a lot of this stuff and now you're just bouncing around like a pinball. You've admitted to some of it, but then moved on to 'meh doesn't matter' and then we're on the next one. I didn't. It depends on what we're talking about. Is he an idiot for for the amount of time he followed the birther nonsense? Definitely. Is he a terrible businessman? I'm not seeing it. The alt right is all over the place on these issues. Being against mass immigration isn't a racist position. People on the right tend to be most upset about the mass influx of Syrian immigrants the left is trying to push, and on this I tend to agree. Attacks in Europe have come from refugees, and arrests have been made after they've got into the country. This is one of many examples: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...st-terror-charges-merkel-maziere-denmark-ISIS I'll credit the EU with doing quite well on rooting these people out, but there have been failures and fuck that invitation policy. If we want to take immigrants, get some poor Africans, central Americans or whoever the fuck. According to the UN more than 20,000 people die every day from starvation. We can bring the tired, the hungry, and the poor without inviting attack that is not only likely, it seems inevitable. I don't trust the government to vet so many refugees, not in the numbers they're talking about. The desire for homogeneous communities thing is absolutely wretched. A lot of it is people who just want to be separated because they're tired of what they perceive as 'white male' being used as a pejorative, or they're paranoid and think SJWs' madness means western culture is under attack. However, this is a piece of the alt right that appears to be mostly disputed within the community. It's kind of like the people on the left who want to see people go to jail for mean words. Yeah, they exist, but it doesn't comprise the movement. I don't actually see it as being very different than the call for non-white safe spaces. The evidence was the commissioner, derp. Nor was it solitary. Nor was it called as the be all end all of the discussion. But you can't take this seriously because I'm just some nut throwing shit into the abyss? None of it is relevant, reliable, or important? Gravy, we have discussed this in dozens of posts and you've ran through so much circular logic I'm starting to think you're mentally ill. In the other thread you either inferred or simply called me racist/sexist more times than I can count, myself being one of several board members. Ok, I get it. You hate republicans, are furiously pro-democrat, and this is the only direction your mind can flow. Have at me, but I think it's time we move on to other aspects of the election as I imagine people are getting sick of reading us going back and forth.
Is this sarcasm? If any of you actually believe that things are wrong with Washington D.C. and that they should change; then this is a huge first step in fixing the problem. I think THAT statement: Term Limits, is the only selling point on Trump for me. If he could pull that off, that would make him one of the greatest Presidents in history in my opinion.
Which as you said is hearsay. I agree what he said was fucked up. I just don't believe him for a second. It is too cooky and too crazy. I'm saying find some more proof here. It's that simple. And the burden of proof is on you. One of several posted on the last two pages... The only thing Audrey has responded to was the video (and she doesn't care about who the person talking is, or what they're saying, clearly), the rest has just been her talking about how much she's read and doesn't believe it. Cool story, doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Is there media bias against Trump some places? Yes, of course. But it's generally not so terrible that they are simply throwing the election for Trump. It's not biased than any other election in history. The biggest difference is Trump is the worst candidate we have seen in a generation. Again, if the media is so biased against him why is he doing so well? Why are all of his supporters the only ones with the glasses that allow them to see Hillary as the alien? He's not a business superhero either. He's a fucking con man. Do you think Trump University is a good business beyond it's profitability? That has con written all over it. Appears to be mostly disputed within the community? That article was written for the main publication of that community and made it a defining factor. There is a huge difference between a safe space and electing leaders who you think will make the entire country that safe space. Are you about to argue that there should be a white entertainment channel? Your evidence is a guy saying some dumb shit wile being secretly recorded. Come back when you have better evidence. Sigh. I don't hate Republicans. If I did, I couldn't live where I live. I find them to generally be good reasonable people. Then again Republicans don't equal Trump supporters. Whole different ballgame. And a crowd that surely has done a lot to elevate the conversation in American politics and make sure we focus on things like issues. As far as you being sexist, you don't think sexism really exists in the country, which yeah, I find to be a sexist position. You also complain about Hillary's voice which is like sexism 101. It works like this: Complaining about Hillary's voice doesn't make you a sexist. But a sexist would definitely be one to complain about her voice. Pair that with your general idea that there is absolutely no inequality between genders leads me to believe that you could be sexist. Sorry. And I hate to break it to you but there has been a lot of racist shit said on this board. Do I think supporting Trump makes you a racist? Not necessarily. But like sexism, if you are a racist, you will be supporting Donald Trump. White Supremacists are fucking jazzed that he is taking them mainstream. Hell, the guy who founded Stormfront said he doesn't usually vote, but he will be voting for Donald Trump. It's kind of rich that you think my mind can only flow one way when every single thing Hillary does fits your narrative of her being crooked. I will give Donald Trump that. It's a brilliant rhetorical move. When you put that in front of someone's name they can't do anything to shake it. She could cure cancer and you would think, "oh, she's just pandering for votes and this will devastate the pharma industry" But yeah, sure. Let's stop. The debate is tomorrow and I'm sure Trump will have done a bunch of bullshit that will make me even more mentally ill.
What the fuck did I write? Can you even read? The second part of your post is the craziest goddamn thing I've ever read. I don't think there's institutionalized sexism throughout the nation, but no one ever said "doesn't exist". The rest of your logical conjecture reads like a talking slot machine. Why am I explaining this to you? Fuck it. Ok man, sexist/racist/kill the babies, whatever = Trump = sexism = duh.
I don't know if I can read anymore, but I'm glad we agree. Trump is a baby killer. Kamf Trinker said it first so you know it's true folks. Ah, yes, the liberal media at it again reporting things that make the DNC/Hillary Clinton look bad.
Both of you fuckers (Kamp and Gravy, in case it wasn't obvious) better tone it down and become much more civilized towards each other. ...just the "Inner Cyber Bully" in me coming out...
The guy that resigned over the video? Robert Creamer. He wasn't some low level hack. He's visited the White House 340 times since 2009. I'm thinking this video is a little more then nothing. White House visitors searchable database: https://open.whitehouse.gov/widgets/p86s-ychb
I'm curious. Does this mean there's no voter fraud, or are you isolating it to say there's no media bias on CNN? The deleting Trump 2016 slogan off a guy's shirt (who was a hero they wanted to interview for a feel-good story) and lying about a wikileak would suggest otherwise. That story would suggest fraudulent behavior on the part of the DNC/Clinton campaign. Your narrative is going in a circle/deflection. Proof? All or none? By the way, the story I just read on CNN was nothing but quotes from democratic officials on how they are super transparent and then talking about how O'keefe is a criminal. So it was little more than a defense of Hillary. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/polit...obert-creamer-donald-trump-rallies/index.html O'keefe is a piece of shit, but just taking the DNC at their word is naive, in my humble, rational opinion. You think I'm racist. Here's what I said: Followed by an explanation of their reasoning and why I disagree with it. Here's what you said: Another thing you said in the post is just strange, which is why I think your arguments are like ideas slamming around inside a pinball machine. That part of the article was about one part of the alt right, who are one group of Trump supporters. You also applied this to the entire alt right because it was referenced in one article. No one ever denied such people exist, but the application of exists--> all alt-right--> therefore Trump wants to institute racial segregation is severely deranged. Your pattern of thinking is beyond bizarre. Trump wants to reduce immigration. He has not once advocated bringing back Jim Crow laws, but fuck it. Your arguments are very odd to say the least. You think I'm sexist. You made up things I've never said. Then you referenced something I did say: Saying one person is an annoying speaker is not 'all women are annoying speakers'. That is how logic actually works. Then you went back to something I've never said, again, in that same quote. I've also said Trump is like an orangutan. That doesn't bother you, or if it does say I'm racist/sexist against white men to be consistent. You really strike me as the sort of person who would think every comedy sketch about Obama is racist. Gravy, you either respond to things people don't say, or you change the topic. Then you call them racist and sexist, often going back to things they've never said. I'm really trying to see your point here, but the series of posts you've written on this election has to be the most muddled and confused distortion I've ever seen anywhere.