• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Project Veritas strikes again / More evidence...

I don't know about his credit ability but many news sources have ruined their credibility and they're still operating. Not investigating but operating.

What these videos will show is what leftist do, it fits their pattern of win at all cost and the corrupt moral nature that controls them

Much of this is discounted from leftists and certain libertarians because of who brings it, again so completely typical of the left.

It should be discounted. Investigation by the government isn't some game.it is intrusive. It should be on something a bit more than hearsay.
 
What these videos will show is what leftist do, it fits their pattern of win at all cost ...

Even if it means wearing duck suits. Is there a depth to which they will not sink?


The one thing I hope these videos accomplish is to discourage a lot of people from donating to candidates and PACs. When you see that duck suit, just remember that is your contributions at work.
 
My bet is that an "investigation" would show zero of interest. I think all they edited out was probably the legalese explanations of how to do what they are proposing doing and stay within the very forgiving and very flexible laws on the topic.

It's a Twitter Twit Talking Point that Super PACs aren't allowed direct dealings with campaigns. This has been discussed ad infinitum and there are limitations but it is all in the area of "it depends on what the meaning of is is" territory.

There is no way they sit around talking about colluding in an illegal manner. That conversation would get shut down by one or more of the conspiracists. They're sitting around a meeting room table openly discussing the candidate's approval/involvement. I doubt it's illegal.

There is nothing to prevent the Hillary Campaign from launching a Donald Ducks campaign. They wanted to do it at arm's length. Just where that line is drawn, legally, I'm not sure. I doubt anyone raising a stink about it is really sure, either.

Damage, on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being "Grab 'em by the pussy!": 0

O'Keefe's on the edge of a career milestone. He's delivering on the money invested in him (Donnie the T being one of those contributors) but his product is shoddy and dysfunctional. He's lucky he got donations/contributions from the black money pool. Otherwise Donald would stiff him. :p He's now barely a distraction and better find himself a Stoessel-type career at the TrumpBart Network, because as a political operative he's a waste of money.
 
It's a Twitter Twit Talking Point that Super PACs aren't allowed direct dealings with campaigns.

....
He's delivering on the money invested in him (Donnie the T being one of those contributors)

Ironic, isn't it?

You have some vague laws that attempt to prohibit certain kinds of conversations. Trying to define "collaboration" is one of those things that is hard to do and impossible to enforce. So, maybe it's possible that this constituted collaboration, which is not actually illegal but it does require reporting and proper accounting if you decide it's really collaboration. Somehow, we are supposed to be up in arms that Hillary or her surrogates may have said that they liked the duck suit idea, but didn't count duck suit rental in their campaign finance regulations. This is apparently the end of western civilization.

Meanwhile, the organization that is bringing this to light is funded using some very clear legal violations by the other candidate. It's hard to figure out exactly where the line is where collaboration becomes illegal, but it's really easy to figure out when someone is taking a tax deduction to fund his own political agenda.
 
I have a proposal logger. Instead of trading empty barbs, how about we meticulously pick through the third debate, and tally up the lies. If you're game, I'll start a thread -- just give the word.
Logger, seeing as you've ignored this invitation (twice), my operating assumption is you prefer empty neenering, and that you have no interest in testing your claim that Clinton lies more than Trump.

From the standpoint of maintaining bubble integrity, good choice!
 
Logger, seeing as you've ignored this invitation (twice), my operating assumption is you prefer empty neenering, and that you have no interest in testing your claim that Clinton lies more than Trump.

From the standpoint of maintaining bubble integrity, good choice!

First of all, you're not interested in meaningful debate and I've already said Trump isn't much different than hillary, although she is clearly worse and more dangerous. So no not interested to see if one has more lies than the other, I've actually got things to do. ;)
 
It should be discounted. Investigation by the government isn't some game.it is intrusive. It should be on something a bit more than hearsay.

It should be discounted because of who brought it, you seem to just be interested in staying in denial. Do you realize all slant their news and all are biased. I think you support hillary and that is fine with me. Her views and libertarianism are very far apart.
 
Even if it means wearing duck suits. Is there a depth to which they will not sink?


The one thing I hope these videos accomplish is to discourage a lot of people from donating to candidates and PACs. When you see that duck suit, just remember that is your contributions at work.

Agreed

All these videos will show is what kind of campaign hillary runs, but everyone knew this already. That's why it is fun to see Donald go against her, he has certainly met her on that level.
 
It should be discounted because of who brought it, you seem to just be interested in staying in denial. Do you realize all slant their news and all are biased. I think you support hillary and that is fine with me. Her views and libertarianism are very far apart.

Our prime (small L) libertarian is supporting Hillary? Speaking of denial. :D
 
First of all, you're not interested in meaningful debate and I've already said Trump isn't much different than hillary, although she is clearly worse and more dangerous. So no not interested to see if one has more lies than the other, I've actually got things to do. ;)

I'll bet if you knew that Hillary lied more you'd be jumping at the chance to show what a liar she was in comparison to Trump. But since you know that Trump spit out lies at a much higher rate than Hillary you'll pass.
 
I'll bet if you knew that Hillary lied more you'd be jumping at the chance to show what a liar she was in comparison to Trump. But since you know that Trump spit out lies at a much higher rate than Hillary you'll pass.

You would agree with everything I said in that post if you could stand back and take a critical nonpartisan view, oh well. Perhaps you might disagree with her being worse but both lie.
 
You would agree with everything I said in that post if you could stand back and take a critical nonpartisan view, oh well. Perhaps you might disagree with her being worse but both lie.

Never said that she doesn't lie. However, it's a demonstrable fact that he lies so much in the debate, it might be easier to just count when he's telling the truth. He lies so much that one has to assume that when he's telling the truth it is purely unintentional.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom