The O'keefe videos

[Edge-]

Your source gives no source.

They do, you just have to follow a few links.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...113hr933ih.pdf

Page 221, section 510. This is a 2013 bill, so 3 years after ACORN officially closed its doors.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...13hr2217rh.pdf

Page 79, section 545. This one from 2014.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...2samdt_xml.pdf

This includes 4 references to ensuring funds don't go to ACORN (HuffPo quotes them in this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4594949.html) but sadly doesn't provide exact locations for them and I can't dig them up now. This one is also 2014, but it's January compared to the September bill linked above.

Will have to check for additional issues, but it absolutely backs up ongoing GOP efforts to continue to deny funding to an organization which hasn't existed for years.

[Tijuana]

Except there are investigations and they always find that in-person voter fraud is rarer than shark attacks.

Except they can't investigate because you can't challenge someone at the poll. If you are not allowed to ask for ID, how can you claim there is no fraud? Ask yourself, physically, how is this supposed to work? I get why Democrat politicians want voter fraud to be a thing. What I don't get, is why Democrat voters would carry that water for them.

- - - Updated - - -

They do, you just have to follow a few links.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...113hr933ih.pdf

Page 221, section 510. This is a 2013 bill, so 3 years after ACORN officially closed its doors.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...13hr2217rh.pdf

Page 79, section 545. This one from 2014.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...2samdt_xml.pdf

This includes 4 references to ensuring funds don't go to ACORN (HuffPo quotes them in this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4594949.html) but sadly doesn't provide exact locations for them and I can't dig them up now. This one is also 2014, but it's January compared to the September bill linked above.

Will have to check for additional issues, but it absolutely backs up ongoing GOP efforts to continue to deny funding to an organization which hasn't existed for years.

I read them and they are all parts of a stack of "also don't fund these guys" that the Republicans were putting in every bill. However, I say again, if your claim is that our country is run by morons, you will get little disagreement from me. The only place it seems we disagree, is that I think they are all morons, and most of you think the Democrat ones have super human levels of smarts.

[NineSpine]

Yeah, I'm sure the Times had at least one honest report at some point in history.

The New York Times has broken some of the most important stories in American history. Your ignorance is showing.

[Darkeon]

Of what, mass voter fraud? It's been debunked time and time again. Do your research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-ballots-cast/

31 credible incidents of voter fraud out of 1 billion ballots cast is not mass voter fraud.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-fraud-n637776

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...er%20Fraud.pdf

Seriously, stop blindly accepting the rampant fear-mongering tactics of the GOP and their agents (such as O'keefe), start actually looking into what is real, and start thinking about what is really going on. There is no major voter fraud taking place, but there is definitely a reason for GOP to continue fear-mongering this issue...so that voter ID laws can be put in place to disenfranchise certain voters (mostly Democratic) ones.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/06/wisc...to_say_it_too/

Sorry, I don't like your sources. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[NineSpine]

Sorry, I don't like your sources. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do you have alternative information?

[Venant]

Why do you keep deflecting from the issue? We're not talking about the Panama Papers, or CNN, or the corporate media. This is a thread about O'Keefe. He's alleging some very serious things here, and he's refusing the release the full unedited videos.

Again. This is an individual with a prior history of editing videos to paint an inaccurate portrait. That's a fact. So you can understand why people want him to release the full, unedited videos. Right?

I understand that you are trying to deflect the content of this reporting because of who is reporting it, you don't trust this source to make editorial decisions in presenting the story, however you should also stipulate that we shouldn't trust the editorial decisions of any media outlet that had representatives attending 'intimate' dinners at John Podesta's house, which basically disqualifies almost every story that has been written about this election.

Why didn't other investigative journalists look into the Clinton campaign? O'Keefe was the only one who bothered to investigate, so I guess he has full editorial control over this story since all the other news outlets were completely derelict in their duties.

Once upon a time there was competition among media organizations, it isn't normal to have every outlet writing the exact same story saying the exact same thing at the exact same time.

[Tijuana]

The New York Times has broken some of the most important stories in American history. Your ignorance is showing.

You inability to spot humor is showing.

But, since you bring it up, you are saying that because they have been in business a long time, and at some point in their history done actual journalism, that somehow that means they have never had a retraction or shown bias? Um, ok. /pat

[NineSpine]

I understand that you are trying to deflect the content of this reporting because of who is reporting it, you don't trust this source to make editorial decisions in presenting the story, however you should also stipulate that we shouldn't trust the editorial decisions of any media outlet that had representatives attending 'intimate' dinners at John Podesta's house, which basically disqualifies almost every story that has been written about this election.

O'Keefe isn't untrustworthy because of perceived conflicts of interest. He is untrustworthy because literally every other time this happened it turned out to be total bullshit.

Why didn't other investigative journalists look into the Clinton campaign? O'Keefe was the only one who bothered to investigate, so I guess he has full editorial control over this story since all the other news outlets were completely derelict in their duties.

Nothing in this report is actually about the Clinton campaign.

Once upon a time there was competition among media organizations, it isn't normal to have every outlet writing the exact same story saying the exact same thing at the exact same time.

That happens because of coordinated leaks that go to the major media organizations at the same time, and again, has nothing to do with why O'Keefe is untrustworthy.

- - - Updated - - -

You inability to spot humor is showing.

But, since you bring it up, you are saying that because they have been in business a long time, and at some point in their history done actual journalism, that somehow that means they have never had a retraction or shown bias? Um, ok. /pat

Well, since I didn't say any of that, I don't have to respond to that, but we will see if the strawman you are arguing with comes to life and makes some posts of his own.

[Tijuana]

O'Keefe isn't untrustworthy because of perceived conflicts of interest. He is untrustworthy because literally every other time this happened it turned out to be total bullshit.



Nothing in this report is actually about the Clinton campaign.



That happens because of coordinated leaks that go to the major media organizations at the same time, and again, has nothing to do with why O'Keefe is untrustworthy.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, since I didn't say any of that, I don't have to respond to that, but we will see if the strawman you are arguing with comes to life and makes some posts of his own.

Well, you are calling me ignorant and putting words in MY mouth, are you not? "The New York Times has broken some of the most important stories in American history. Your ignorance is showing." I never said anything at all about whether or not they ever broke an important story. So, it is you sir, who started with the straw men.

[NineSpine]

Well, you are calling me ignorant and putting words in MY mouth, are you not? "The New York Times has broken some of the most important stories in American history. Your ignorance is showing." I never said anything at all about whether or not they ever broke an important story. So, it is you sir, who started with the straw men.

You explicitly questioned the Times' reputation and I explicitly refuted that. It's not like this was some wild change of topic, but it's interesting how hung up on it you are.

"Yeah, I'm sure the Times had at least one honest report at some point in history."
"I never said anything at all about whether or not they ever broke an important story."

[TZucchini]

I understand that you are trying to deflect the content of this reporting because of who is reporting it, you don't trust this source to make editorial decisions in presenting the story, however you should also stipulate that we shouldn't trust the editorial decisions of any media outlet that had representatives attending 'intimate' dinners at John Podesta's house, which basically disqualifies almost every story that has been written about this election.

I absolutely am questioning the source of the information. No bones about it.

O'Keefe has been caught editing videos in an extremely misleading manner. That's a fact.

And now O'Keefe has presented three more highly-edited videos. He has access to the full, unedited copies, but refuses to release them.

And you're willing to accept it, without questions?

Why didn't other investigative journalists look into the Clinton campaign? O'Keefe was the only one who bothered to investigate, so I guess he has full editorial control over this story since all the other news outlets were completely derelict in their duties.

Are you seriously claiming that O'Keefe is the only individual to every conduct an investigation into the Clinton campaign? Oh, that's fucking rich.

[unbound]

Sorry, I don't like your sources. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sorry, can't help with your confirmation bias. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Garnier Fructis]

Try and justify it all you want, but you know O'Keefe isn't releasing it because he's been found out in the past.

All these excuses you're making about how people wouldn't watch it or how O'Keefe is the only one investigating are flimsy. And these attempts to justify really only come across as fear that perhaps he really is full of shit and you don't want to face the possibility that you got duped.

[Venant]

Try and justify it all you want, but you know O'Keefe isn't releasing it because he's been found out in the past.

All these excuses you're making about how people wouldn't watch it or how O'Keefe is the only one investigating are flimsy. And these attempts to justify really only come across as fear that perhaps he really is full of shit and you don't want to face the possibility that you got duped.

It does seem like the best course of action here is a full investigation and full transparency across the entire media. Hopefully we will see CNN and MSNBC reporting on this and questioning people in these organizations about the content of the tapes so that we can correct the record here.

[Garnier Fructis]

It does seem like the best course of action here is a full investigation and full transparency across the entire media. Hopefully we will see CNN and MSNBC reporting on this and questioning people in these organizations about the content of the tapes so that we can correct the record here.

Or we could just, you know, have O'Keefe release what he's got and save everyone the trouble.

I see what you're doing here, which is still trying to justify why O'Keefe shouldn't release the full stuff.

[Venant]

Or we could just, you know, have O'Keefe release what he's got and save everyone the trouble.

I see what you're doing here, which is still trying to justify why O'Keefe shouldn't release the full stuff.

But even if he releases the full videos, who is going to watch them? The major media corporations should report on this and request that he releases the footage as well, as opposed to simply blacklisting the story.

And to be fair, it is completely disingenuous of the corporate media to not report on the findings in relation to these organizations funding violence at Trump rallies, since this is new information being provided in relation to ongoing stories that they have reported on in the past. In the past, these organizations portrayed the violence at these rallies to be caused by Trump supporters, now this video comes out and they attempted to blacklist the story, and from wikileaks we learn about widespread collusion between people at these media organizations and the Clinton campaign.

It sounds like one damning indictment of the media in this country, which is where I think all this is heading. Can we at least reach agreement on the fact that the corporate media has been found to be largely biased and corrupt?

[NineSpine]

It does seem like the best course of action here is a full investigation and full transparency across the entire media. Hopefully we will see CNN and MSNBC reporting on this and questioning people in these organizations about the content of the tapes so that we can correct the record here.

Why should any media organization waste their time on O'Keefe when his track record is literally just lies.

[Garnier Fructis]

But even if he releases the full videos, who is going to watch them? The major media corporations should report on this and request that he releases the footage as well, as opposed to simply blacklisting the story.

Jesus, we're right back to 'he shouldn't release them because nobody will watch them.'

[NineSpine]

But even if he releases the full videos, who is going to watch them? The major media corporations should report on this and request that he releases the footage as well, as opposed to simply blacklisting the story.

And to be fair, it is completely disingenuous of the corporate media to not report on the findings in relation to these organizations funding violence at Trump rallies, since this is new information being provided in relation to ongoing stories that they have reported on in the past. In the past, these organizations portrayed the violence at these rallies to be caused by Trump supporters, now this video comes out and they attempted to blacklist the story, and from wikileaks we learn about widespread collusion between people at these media organizations and the Clinton campaign.

It sounds like one damning indictment of the media in this country, which is where I think all this is heading. Can we at least reach agreement on the fact that the corporate media has been found to be largely biased and corrupt?

All the videos say is that you can provoke Trump supporters to violence by wearing t shirts that offend them. It doesn't say they are staging violence.

[TZucchini]

It does seem like the best course of action here is a full investigation and full transparency across the entire media. Hopefully we will see CNN and MSNBC reporting on this and questioning people in these organizations about the content of the tapes so that we can correct the record here.

It's not the media's job to report on YouTube video's. If O'Keefe wants full transparency, he needs to start by releasing the full, unedited videos.