Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Project Veritas

Fernyx
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:33:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At the time of this post a group known as 'Project Veritas' has uploaded 2 videos on YouTube exposing the Clinton Campaign of sending paid provocateurs to Trump rallies and conspiring with groups committing voter fraud. They have vowed to keep uploading new videos up until the election. Should the Clinton Campaign be charged for these actions?

Video 1; Incite Violence- https://www.youtube.com...
Video 2; Voter Fraud- https://www.youtube.com...
kevin24018
Posts: 3,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:36:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 10/18/2016 8:33:28 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At the time of this post a group known as 'Project Veritas' has uploaded 2 videos on YouTube exposing the Clinton Campaign of sending paid provocateurs to Trump rallies and conspiring with groups committing voter fraud. They have vowed to keep uploading new videos up until the election. Should the Clinton Campaign be charged for these actions?

Video 1; Incite Violence- https://www.youtube.com...
Video 2; Voter Fraud- https://www.youtube.com...

no one cares, if she won't be convicted for all the other things she has done, this certainly wouldn't stick either, it's sad really.
BobTheRocket2 wrote:
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what, it's going to knock over the pieces, crap all over the board, and strut around like it's victorious.

"Beware the engineers of society, I say, who would make everyone in all the world equal. Opportunity should be equal, must be equal, but achievement must remain individual.
- Drizzt Do'Urden"
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:47:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Agree don't and it will be dismissed as propaganda... but if they bring wine to rallies and distribute everyone could have vino veritas
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 8:59:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Okay, so I'm really iffy about Project Veritas.

It's run by James O'Keefe, of ACORN infamy--he postures as a "guerilla journalist", but it's an artistically licentious way of saying "I set up, selectively edit, and rearrange the chronology of stuff I capture". It's long since been established he's possessed of little credibility, and I would go so far as to say he diminishes by association the journalistic integrity of the investigative reporting enterprise. Not that ACORN was 100% perfectly managed, mind you, but they basically went down the shitter because O'Keefe couldn't be bothered to adhere completely to industry standards in compiling his final report, which led to a bunch of money and legal buoying being pulled under what were later discovered to be dubious pretenses (dubious on a good day). And, though I haven't read the full histories, I understand this is not an isolated incident.

It would be easy to respond to my mistrust with "genetic fallacy" or "oh yeah so because he did one bad thing you're just gonna assume all his subsequent things are bad", but it misses the point, which is that he composed an entire journalistic project on evidence that had been in turns manufactured and heavily tampered with then promoted that project as a work of honest, eye-opening reporting, when he knew damn well it wasn't, which fiasco should lead any reasonable person to heavily discount any content bearing his mark or endorsement.

It would be similarly easy to accuse me of being a shill for Hillary Clinton because I'm denying what appear to be semi-serious accusations (my impression is what they're accused of doing was grey-area legal, but pretty slimy nevertheless), but my counter would be that, in the set of all accusations you could levy against her, cross-referenced against the available and unambiguous [Wikileaks] evidence, YouTube videos advanced on behalf of a widely-discredited pretend journalist are, more than low-hanging fruit, like the fruit that have fallen from the tree and long since rotted.
Fernyx
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 4:46:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 10/18/2016 8:59:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Okay, so I'm really iffy about Project Veritas.

It's run by James O'Keefe, of ACORN infamy--he postures as a "guerilla journalist", but it's an artistically licentious way of saying "I set up, selectively edit, and rearrange the chronology of stuff I capture". It's long since been established he's possessed of little credibility, and I would go so far as to say he diminishes by association the journalistic integrity of the investigative reporting enterprise. Not that ACORN was 100% perfectly managed, mind you, but they basically went down the shitter because O'Keefe couldn't be bothered to adhere completely to industry standards in compiling his final report, which led to a bunch of money and legal buoying being pulled under what were later discovered to be dubious pretenses (dubious on a good day). And, though I haven't read the full histories, I understand this is not an isolated incident.

It would be easy to respond to my mistrust with "genetic fallacy" or "oh yeah so because he did one bad thing you're just gonna assume all his subsequent things are bad", but it misses the point, which is that he composed an entire journalistic project on evidence that had been in turns manufactured and heavily tampered with then promoted that project as a work of honest, eye-opening reporting, when he knew damn well it wasn't, which fiasco should lead any reasonable person to heavily discount any content bearing his mark or endorsement.

It would be similarly easy to accuse me of being a shill for Hillary Clinton because I'm denying what appear to be semi-serious accusations (my impression is what they're accused of doing was grey-area legal, but pretty slimy nevertheless), but my counter would be that, in the set of all accusations you could levy against her, cross-referenced against the available and unambiguous [Wikileaks] evidence, YouTube videos advanced on behalf of a widely-discredited pretend journalist are, more than low-hanging fruit, like the fruit that have fallen from the tree and long since rotted.

Apparently it is legit enough to get 2 people to lose their jobs.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 6:28:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 10/19/2016 4:46:41 PM, Fernyx wrote:
At 10/18/2016 8:59:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Okay, so I'm really iffy about Project Veritas.

It's run by James O'Keefe, of ACORN infamy--he postures as a "guerilla journalist", but it's an artistically licentious way of saying "I set up, selectively edit, and rearrange the chronology of stuff I capture". It's long since been established he's possessed of little credibility, and I would go so far as to say he diminishes by association the journalistic integrity of the investigative reporting enterprise. Not that ACORN was 100% perfectly managed, mind you, but they basically went down the shitter because O'Keefe couldn't be bothered to adhere completely to industry standards in compiling his final report, which led to a bunch of money and legal buoying being pulled under what were later discovered to be dubious pretenses (dubious on a good day). And, though I haven't read the full histories, I understand this is not an isolated incident.

It would be easy to respond to my mistrust with "genetic fallacy" or "oh yeah so because he did one bad thing you're just gonna assume all his subsequent things are bad", but it misses the point, which is that he composed an entire journalistic project on evidence that had been in turns manufactured and heavily tampered with then promoted that project as a work of honest, eye-opening reporting, when he knew damn well it wasn't, which fiasco should lead any reasonable person to heavily discount any content bearing his mark or endorsement.

It would be similarly easy to accuse me of being a shill for Hillary Clinton because I'm denying what appear to be semi-serious accusations (my impression is what they're accused of doing was grey-area legal, but pretty slimy nevertheless), but my counter would be that, in the set of all accusations you could levy against her, cross-referenced against the available and unambiguous [Wikileaks] evidence, YouTube videos advanced on behalf of a widely-discredited pretend journalist are, more than low-hanging fruit, like the fruit that have fallen from the tree and long since rotted.

Apparently it is legit enough to get 2 people to lose their jobs.

At least one of them stepped down on his own in order to not be a distraction, rather than as some sort of admission of guilt. Sounds like making a sacrifice for a greater good, to me.