The O'keefe videos

[Endus]

Well...yeah. I was trying to make that point since there were several people in the thread dismissing everything in those videos simply by saying that they were made by O'Keefe, who's supposedly a liar, and who has therefore obviously edited everything and there's no clear context anywhere.

It's more that you can't trust that the content in those videos hasn't been so heavily edited as to be deliberately misleading, because O'keefe has flagrantly done so in most of his past work. So we'd want to see the full, unedited video footage before believing it. He's cried wolf far too often.

Well, this isn't obvious. We don't know the behind-the-curtains affiliations of those people. I'm sure you can admit that certain people are in contact with certain other people and messages get sent through certain backchannels even when they shouldn't be. Of course that's all speculation and so on, but honestly, some of that stuff does go on and does happen.

If you "don't know", you have no business imagining things and pretending they're true.

Also, does it really matter whether he's a part of the DNC or not? If a force like this goes around tainting the process by inciting violence (which they did, as he admitted to it), then the process it tainted. It doesn't matter who did it. It's now a tainted process that can't be trusted to be fair, at least not so far as not having any people, and their votes, be influenced by these kinds of operations and tactics.

1> Yes, it absolutely matters if he's part of the DNC, since the claims O'Keefe is making is that the DNC is orchestrating this.

2> There's no process that's been "tainted" in baiting supporters.

3> The voter fraud tape is difficult to determine either way, because it sure sounds like he's describing theoreticals, how COULD they engage in voter fraud if they wanted to, not describing actual actions or plans.

Yeah, I'm not sure if it's illegal. I'd hope inciting violence is illegal when it's a systematic effort like this by a large group, and not just a single person mouthing off to someone. As for it being questionable, of course it is, and on that we'll just have to disagree.

What's illegal is assaulting people violently. Wearing a shirt that Trump supporters hate, and shouting anti-Trump slogans, outside of a Trump rally, that's all free speech, and isn't in any way something that should be even seen as questionable. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, and you respond violently, you belong in prison, frankly.

I'm not excusing the people who turn to violence, but I'm also not going to agree that inciting that violence is in any way excusable, and if it's not illegal, then your laws are wrong. As I said, we'll just have to disagree here.

Again, we're talking about "inciting" that was at the level of "wear a Planned Parenthood t-shirt". That's literally what the 1st Amendment exists to protect. It's the equivalent of claiming you shot a guy in "self-defense" because you saw that he was legally open-carrying himself and took his ownership of a weapon as a lethal threat; that means you're a psycho murderer, not that the other guy "provoked" you.

[Machismo]

For me, Endus is always on the complete opposite side of reality when it comes to anything political. I am diametrically opposed to him in every conceivable way when it comes to politics so when I see him post what he does I can be assured that in reality the exact opposite is actually the truth.

That means you have opted for blind partisanship and willful ignorance. Congratulations.

[NineSpine]

For me, Endus is always on the complete opposite side of reality when it comes to anything political. I am diametrically opposed to him in every conceivable way when it comes to politics so when I see him post what he does I can be assured that in reality the exact opposite is actually the truth.

So because you don't like Endus, that means that this random guy in these videos worked for the DNC and HRC? Reality doesn't bend to your unmitigated hatred. Having more hate and bile than other people doesn't change reality.

[AndaliteBandit]

For me, Endus is always on the complete opposite side of reality when it comes to anything political. I am diametrically opposed to him in every conceivable way when it comes to politics so when I see him post what he does I can be assured that in reality the exact opposite is actually the truth.

Show us on the doll where he banned you.

[Deleted]

Interesting, since this guy worked for neither HRC or the DNC....

It is obvious you did not watch the tapes. Had you actually watched them, you would realize your assertion is incorrect - he indirectly worked for both of them.

[Stormdash]

I hope you get a lot of your clients found "innocent". Fraud.

I posted a picture of my Bar ID last time this was going on... it was Rukentuts I think?... and it convinced him to the sum of zero, but sure, I'll try again --

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...018_164535.jpg

Picture was taken pretty lazily, but you'll see today's date on the computer. I probably could have been more thorough but ultimately I don't actually care if you believe me or not other than it's so easy to prove. I'm sure I just found one of those bar member cards you see on ebay or something and keep it near my desk in case someone wants to accuse me of lying about being an attorney

[Endus]

For me, Endus is always on the complete opposite side of reality when it comes to anything political. I am diametrically opposed to him in every conceivable way when it comes to politics so when I see him post what he does I can be assured that in reality the exact opposite is actually the truth.

I almost wonder what you folks would do if I came out for Trump.

[Edge-]

For me, Endus is always on the complete opposite side of reality when it comes to anything political. I am diametrically opposed to him in every conceivable way when it comes to politics so when I see him post what he does I can be assured that in reality the exact opposite is actually the truth.

So if he said, "Donald Trump is the greatest candidate we've ever had and will make the best president ever." You'd continue to be diametrically opposed to him in every conceivable way?

[Deleted]

I almost wonder what you folks would do if I came out for Trump.

LOL - mind blown!!!

[NineSpine]

I posted a picture of my Bar ID last time this was going on... it was Rukentuts I think?... and it convinced him to the sum of zero, but sure, I'll try again --

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/i...018_164535.jpg

Picture was taken pretty lazily, but you'll see today's date on the computer. I probably could have been more thorough but ultimately I don't actually care if you believe me or not other than it's so easy to prove. I'm sure I just found one of those bar member cards you see on ebay or something and keep it near my desk in case someone wants to accuse me of lying about being an attorney

A court would certainly find you innocent in this case.

[Stormdash]

I almost wonder what you folks would do if I came out for Trump.

Well, they'd assume it was a put on. Because... it would be a put on.

[NineSpine]

It is obvious you did not watch the tapes. Had you actually watched them, you would realize your assertion is incorrect - he indirectly worked for both of them.

What does "indirectly" mean?

[Stormdash]

A court would certainly find you innocent in this case.

You keep using that phrase -- "court finding innocent" -- as though I used it, which I didn't. Like it's some smoking gun that nobody fired. It's kinda weird. You're the only one who has ever said anything about courts finding anyone innocent. I said OJ "probably killed them" as a legal position, which is true -- between the legal determinations of his civil trial and his criminal one, different juries kind of intersect along the idea that it's greater than 50/50 that he killed them, but not more than the unquantifiable "beyond a reasonable doubt". AKA, "probably".

EDIT: So I'm guessing you decided to go with the "he bothered to print out a fake or buy one online because internet"? Heh.

[Deleted]

What does "indirectly" mean?

Go watch the 1st video, from 2:55 to 3:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

[NineSpine]

You keep using that phrase -- "court finding innocent" -- as though I used it, which I didn't. Like it's some smoking gun that nobody fired. It's kinda weird. You're the only one who has ever said anything about courts finding anyone innocent. I said OJ "probably killed them" as a legal position, which is true -- between the legal determinations of his civil trial and his criminal one, different juries kind of intersect along the idea that it's greater than 50/50 that he killed them, but not more than the unquantifiable "beyond a reasonable doubt". AKA, "probably".

EDIT: So I'm guessing you decided to go with the "he bothered to print out a fake or buy one online because internet"? Heh.

"...it still wouldn't make the decision not to prosecute the same as a legal finding of guilt or innocence."

- - - Updated - - -

Go watch the 1st video, from 2:55 to 3:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

Oh, the part where is contracted by someone who is contracted by the DNC, and like five levels removed from that, because he doesn't even work for the consulting group be is contracted with? What a smoking gun!

[Endus]

Go watch the 1st video, from 2:55 to 3:20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

And, yet again, the part neither you nor O'Keefe have any justification for is claiming that the DNC or the campaign approved these tactics. He's describing what's essentially a consultancy. Generally, you get given a goal, and you're more or less free to go about whatever means you legally can to achieve that goal, and your client (which is the relationship Foval's describing) doesn't get a say, other than through firing you if they find out something they don't like.

Especially when your own clip makes clear that there's several other entities in the chain between him and the campaign.

[NineSpine]

What we've established:

A guy affiliated with a consulting group that the DNC hires, said some BARELY questionable stuff about how easy it is to incite the lunatics that support Trump to punch people.

Meanwhile, your presidential candidate is a fucking rapist. You people are sick, sick as fuck.

infracted - minor flaming

[Trollhammer]

"Americans United for Change has always operated according to the highest ethical standards," said Brad Woodhouse, President of Americans United For Change. "Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change."

Is this the same guy who is president of CTR?

[Endus]

What we've established:

A guy affiliated with a consulting group that the DNC hires, said some BARELY questionable stuff about how easy it is to incite the lunatics that support Trump to punch people.

Meanwhile, your presidential candidate is a fucking rapist. You people are sick, sick as fuck.

Now, now. He's only admitted to various sex offenses like forcible touching, not rape-rape. Let's not be hyperbolic.

[Stormdash]

"...it still wouldn't make the decision not to prosecute the same as a legal finding of guilt or innocence."

A pretty broad reach, but whatever floats your boat. Yeah, I didn't go to law school or pass the bar, I just went out of my way to print a fake bar identification so I could take spontaneous photos of it to get over on internet debris. Much more likely than that I just, y'know, took it out of my wallet. This is like being facef#@#ed by Occam's Razor in terms of what you are willing to believe. I've always known that the last thing anybody on MMO-C cares about when it comes to the law is a lawyer's perspective, so it still mostly just amuses me, not bothered. I thought using a Trump-hostile example of the same concept might help (i.e. the SA's office down south choosing not to prosecute Lewandowski doesn't mean he didn't actually improperly manhandle a reporter), but I guess that was a wasted effort.