By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Rigging the Election

Machiavellian on 19 October 2016
Dunban67 said:
Machiavellian said:

The first video is garbage.  There are parts where a question is asked, then you see a blink and then the person answers something.  Why would you need to edit from the question to the answer unless they are not in the same context.  You see that right in the very beginning of the video.  There is no need to edit at that point and when someone does it totally makes the video suspect.

I am talking about statements the various opratives made that would be difficult or impossible to misinterpret-   There are more than a few in the video that don t need edits or explanation-  they stand on their own merrit

on another note  did you see the incident in Atlanta were the "environmental" candidates tour buss dumped raw sweage in the street (  Hazmat was called to vclen up)   but their response was the most telling-  "they did not know they had done anying wrong..."   deflecting, blaming-   may not seem like a big deal to some but there is so much evidence out there including the wikki links that says-  the law is not for them or their close allies,  just for the rest of us

The issue is that anyone could pose a question that isn't even said to a person then edit the video to an answer.  Without the raw footage, its impossible to know if the question and answer are within the same context or even asked of that person.  With video like this, you could easily ask a question like (What do you think Trump would do for XXX).  Next you can splice in a totally different question saying (What has your political campaign done.  This is why you need raw footage to make any claim of undercover work legitimate.  If you have just sound bites and heavy edited video, you have no clue what the heck is going on and why was an answer give in a certain way.

The fact that you have question than edit, then answer should throw all kinds of alarms in your head because their is no need to splice and edit the question from the answer.  This is done throughout the video which makes it totally unreliable.



Around the Network
Dunban67 on 19 October 2016

It is on record that Scott Creamer, one of the operatives in the video has visited the White Hose 342 ties sinces 2009- Nice company they keep up there



Dunban67 on 19 October 2016
Machiavellian said:
Dunban67 said:

I am talking about statements the various opratives made that would be difficult or impossible to misinterpret-   There are more than a few in the video that don t need edits or explanation-  they stand on their own merrit

on another note  did you see the incident in Atlanta were the "environmental" candidates tour buss dumped raw sweage in the street (  Hazmat was called to vclen up)   but their response was the most telling-  "they did not know they had done anying wrong..."   deflecting, blaming-   may not seem like a big deal to some but there is so much evidence out there including the wikki links that says-  the law is not for them or their close allies,  just for the rest of us

The issue is that anyone could pose a question that isn't even said to a person then edit the video to an answer.  Without the raw footage, its impossible to know if the question and answer are within the same context or even asked of that person.  With video like this, you could easily ask a question like (What do you think Trump would do for XXX).  Next you can splice in a totally different question saying (What has your political campaign done.  This is why you need raw footage to make any claim of undercover work legitimate.  If you have just sound bites and heavy edited video, you have no clue what the heck is going on and why was an answer give in a certain way.

The fact that you have question than edit, then answer should throw all kinds of alarms in your head because their is no need to splice and edit the question from the answer.  This is done throughout the video which makes it totally unreliable.

all you have to do is look at the uneditd statements, claims etc that the operatives made- they stand on their own-  there is plentin the video that can t be misconstrued by anyone unless they simply don t want to recognize it- 



Augen on 19 October 2016
SpokenTruth said:
Since 2000, 1 billion votes cast, only 31 incidents of actual voter fraud known.

Every state is independent of each other for voting. Each poling place is monitored by both parties.

To commit wide scale voter fraud would require collusion on a scale that rivals the chemtrail conspiracy.

This is what gets me.  If, for example, Democrats could "fix" an election, why on Earth would they allow Republicans to win so many?  I'm sure Obama would have preferred having 75% of the House and Senate to do pretty much any legislation he wanted.

It seems conspiracy is preferable to the idea that maybe one's world view is in the minority and people prefer another candidate.



LivingMetal on 19 October 2016

That Scott Foval fellow was just fired after these vids were made public. Go figure.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 19 October 2016
Dunban67 said:

all you have to do is look at the uneditd statements, claims etc that the operatives made- they stand on their own-  there is plentin the video that can t be misconstrued by anyone unless they simply don t want to recognize it- 

Where is the unedited statements.  In other words I want to see the start, middle and end with absolutly no edits in the video or audio.  I have seen way to often this type of evidence on both side of the fence so I stop trusting any video or audio that is clipped or edited in any way.



Machiavellian on 19 October 2016
Augen said:
SpokenTruth said:
Since 2000, 1 billion votes cast, only 31 incidents of actual voter fraud known.

Every state is independent of each other for voting. Each poling place is monitored by both parties.

To commit wide scale voter fraud would require collusion on a scale that rivals the chemtrail conspiracy.

This is what gets me.  If, for example, Democrats could "fix" an election, why on Earth would they allow Republicans to win so many?  I'm sure Obama would have preferred having 75% of the House and Senate to do pretty much any legislation he wanted.

It seems conspiracy is preferable to the idea that maybe one's world view is in the minority and people prefer another candidate.

I also asked this question.  If the Democrates are so damn good at voter fraud, how the heck we have a Republican run House and Senate.  It really does not add up.



Chris Hu on 19 October 2016

LOL, I swear the tin foil head wearing right wingers and right wing conspiracy nuts are on a whole other level of crazy we need more insane asylums so they can have permanent homes.



Dunban67 on 19 October 2016
Machiavellian said:
Dunban67 said:

all you have to do is look at the uneditd statements, claims etc that the operatives made- they stand on their own-  there is plentin the video that can t be misconstrued by anyone unless they simply don t want to recognize it- 

Where is the unedited statements.  In other words I want to see the start, middle and end with absolutly no edits in the video or audio.  I have seen way to often this type of evidence on both side of the fence so I stop trusting any video or audio that is clipped or edited in any way.

I wishe would get far more unedited info from all our potential sources of news/info you will rarely see a news unedited news clip-  it is not always for nefarious reasons the clips are edited but they are edited heavily none the less



LivingMetal on 19 October 2016
Machiavellian said:
Dunban67 said:

all you have to do is look at the uneditd statements, claims etc that the operatives made- they stand on their own-  there is plentin the video that can t be misconstrued by anyone unless they simply don t want to recognize it- 

Where is the unedited statements.  In other words I want to see the start, middle and end with absolutly no edits in the video or audio.  I have seen way to often this type of evidence on both side of the fence so I stop trusting any video or audio that is clipped or edited in any way.

I think we all understand where you are coming from.  But the reality here is that virtually all sources gives you only part of the picture.  Seeing a video clip such as this is more raw what listening to any news anchor from any news outlet.  It's all in piece any info you get.  To ignore will never restore.