Project veritas part 1 Rigging the election

Could they be paving the road for a paramilitary organisation whose sole purpose of existence is to route out and eliminate "wrong" politics, and those who hold them?

Certainly would not be the first time something like this has precluded such an organisation.

a reply to: Martin75

Speaking negatively about a political candidate will not qualify as intent to incite, even if it is at that candidates rally.

The law understands that normal people have a certain level of intellect and control of their emotions. The fact that Trump rallies is filled with lower intellect people that are prone to unstable emotions doesn't take away someones first amendment right to speak their mind.

That's like saying a New York Yankees fan going to a Boston Red Sox game in Boston is inciting violence because he wears a Yankees jersey to the game. If he gets punched, it's not his fault...it's the fault of the unstable Red Sox fan that punched him. Even if they guys is yelling "Red Sox Suck", it doesn't give anyone the right to physically assault the guy and it doesn't mean the guy is inciting violence.

Your argument is ridiculous and I really don't think you understand what inciting violence means.

originally posted by: matafuchs
There is a LOT of locker room talk going on here...

Anyone who is still saying that the DNC and HIllary are not controlling this election is either deluded, mentally challenged or both.

and this is not creative editing just like ACORN was not.

It absolutely is, stop being a gullible fool.

a reply to: UKTruth
I have said from day 1....the wrong candidate is being called a Nazi....

Hillary's Heart of HATE:


Calling for her supporters to follow out the man ejected by her security detail, for a good old fashioned "Intervention". "He clearly has not been following this election very closely", she said:


At the next rally they did as they 'were told' and "Staged An Intervention":

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Martin75

Speaking negatively about a political candidate will not qualify as intent to incite, even if it is at that candidates rally.

The law understands that normal people have a certain level of intellect and control of their emotions. The fact that Trump rallies is filled with lower intellect people that are prone to unstable emotions doesn't take away someones first amendment right to speak their mind.

That's like saying a New York Yankees fan going to a Boston Red Sox game in Boston is inciting violence because he wears a Yankees jersey to the game. If he gets punched, it's not his fault...it's the fault of the unstable Red Sox fan that punched him. Even if they guys is yelling "Red Sox Suck", it doesn't give anyone the right to physically assault the guy and it doesn't mean the guy is inciting violence.

Your argument is ridiculous and I really don't think you understand what inciting violence means.

Deflect, deflect, deflect.
Seriously, aren't you glad that the utterly corrupt DNC are now out in the open?
You can relax as there is really nothing you can do any more. It must have been tiring for you all this time.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Martin75

Speaking negatively about a political candidate will not qualify as intent to incite, even if it is at that candidates rally.

D'uh. If they are a recruit in this program, then it is demonstrable that they INTENDED to incite violence -- no matter what the words they used were. They were recruited for the sole purpose of inciting violence with words & actions.

Violence was the goal.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: UKTruth
I have said from day 1....the wrong candidate is being called a Nazi....

Well at least we know who the Nazi's are now... the DNC... and it's now easier to spot the Brown Shirts.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Martin75

Speaking negatively about a political candidate will not qualify as intent to incite, even if it is at that candidates rally.

D'uh. If they are a recruit in this program, then it is demonstrable that they INTENDED to incite violence -- no matter what the words they used were. They were recruited for the sole purpose of inciting violence with words & actions.

Violence was the goal.

Reaction was the goal, violence is on those that resort to using it as a reaction.

Every protest has a goal of a reaction, are you trying to say all protests should be illegal?

Sounds very un-American to me.

a reply to: kruphix

No, VIOLENCE was the intended reaction.

INCITING VIOLENCE was the intent.

You know, it's one thing to say Hillary is absolved of criminal wrongdoing because intent could not be proven. I accept that.

But when the intention to incite violence is clearly stated on video...yeah, you aren't convincing me or anyone that there was no intent to incite violence.

Please.

This is the last trump, for such a time as this.

For ears that hear and eyes that see.

Here's a DNC leak email talking about their "allies" screwing up and not 'delivering the bodies' to a "protest" on time:


And so on...

a reply to: theantediluvian

The man who 'punched' her actually bumped into her and was older than she was...you are gonna have to try and find another one.

You are also picking and choosing. I have no problem with organized nonviolent protests. That is ok. It is our right. This OP is about the Clinton machine along with Mr Soros attacking Trump supporters for nothing more than attending a rally of someone they want to be the next president. If this was reported in Russia the US media would be ALL Over it...wait, they always are.

If you played this tape on every news outlet there is a LOT of supporters of HIllary would be shocked. Not all, but many.

Cop Admits Violent Protesters Were Bussed Into Trump Rally

a reply to: kruphix

Violence IS illegal.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: kruphix

No, VIOLENCE was the intended reaction.

INCITING VIOLENCE was the intent.

You know, it's one thing to say Hillary is absolved of criminal wrongdoing because intent could not be proven. I accept that.

But when the intention to incite violence is clearly stated on video...yeah, you aren't convincing me or anyone that there was no intent to incite violence.

Please.

Where in that video does it state that violence was the goal?

They clearly state that a reaction is the goal, which is what every protest is about.

I asked before for someone to give me the minute/second of the video where they state their goal is violence...no one has seemed to be able to show me yet.

a reply to: matafuchs

This OP is about the Clinton machine along with Mr Soros attacking Trump supporters for nothing more than attending a rally of someone they want to be the next president.

No it's not.

Again, I don't think you actually watched the video. And if you did, you didn't comprehend what they were talking about.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: kruphix

Violence IS illegal.

And the violence is being committed by Trump supporters.

So I guess we agree, it is the Trump supporters who are the problem.

What even is the point of talking to these people.

They deflect away from the actual OP and go wildly offtopic.

a reply to: kruphix

Sometimes you just gotta know when to fold um.
and walk away