Project veritas part 1 Rigging the election

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: kruphix

You think its a 'smart play by the Democrats' to be employing and manipulating the mentally ill to go into rallies and start trouble? 'Smart' isn't exactly the descriptor I'd use for that.

I think it is smart to recognize a weakness and exploit it.

You are a mess, dude.

You are talking about exploiting mentally unstable people and training them to incite violence.

No, I'm talking about exploiting the emotional instability of your typical Trump supporter.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Merely saying things to Trump supporters is inciting "imminent lawless action" because there are so many unstable people within that group that shouting questions/slogans triggers them to respond with violence?

That's essentially your argument as I see it.

Schenck v. United States is actually a case about a man (Charles Schenck) and his cohort who were arrested under the Sedition Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets that encouraged people to resist the draft.

In your haste to figure out how a crime was committed, you've inadvertantly cited a case of political speech being quashed by the government.

you forgot to mention all the dudes on the video spilling the beans will be Arkancided right after the vote that way when any legal stooshie happens they won't be available to testify or incriminate.

I think Trump is going to have some fun with this video at the debate on Wednesday.

Denial of evidence and deflection. Same thing over and over it seems.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Denial of evidence and deflection. Same thing over and over it seems.

Looks that way - I like it though. Reputations and credibility being burned with every post they make

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: kruphix

They were paid to incite violence, not stage a peaceful protest.

Where's your proof that the city of Chicago unanimously did not want Trump there?

At this point, these thugs organizing violence do not deserve any benefit of the doubt. None.

Where is the proof that they were paid to incite violence?

Just because Trump supporters can't handle their emotions, doesn't place the blame on the protesters.

This program recruits people to say and do things WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT to incite violence.

People can't handle their emotions when they run out of a crowded theater because some a-hole yells "Fire" hoping a few people get trampled. It doesn't make it legal.

a reply to: matafuchs

No, being pissed is not an negative emotion. if it is then you have anger issues. I can be pissed my son got a bad grade but I do not beat him. Non-negative. I can also be pissed at my neighbor and give him the finger. Negative.

Being pissed at your kid for getting a bad grade is negative.

Maybe you should talk to him to see what he is having trouble with and help him understand it, instead of getting angry at him.

I don't understand how you think getting pissed isn't a negative emotion.

a reply to: kruphix

Jesus Christ. You people will find any excuse for this low life sh**, won't you? I'd say it takes a gutless coward to stand by and let people spit on them and wait for someone else to defend them. But, you keep on believing Clinton is above all this. When the time comes, do you really think your "Hillary For President" bumper sticker will make a damn bit of difference?
What sickens me about you Liberals is, you claim to believe everyone is equal, when your words and actions show you think you're better than everyone else. Equal Rights! [ but only if you agree with us ]

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't give a flying fig about Democrats & Republicans and your bitter battle. There are some of us that don't support either party and I don't appreciate your stupid partisan dirty tricks leading to police officers being injured.

Then you should probably stay out of politics.

I don't hear the Chicago police complaining, they even stated Trump could have stayed because they had it well under control.

I won't be forced out of politics because you condone this.

Screw that. I will continue to voice my opinion that THIS is not how 'politics' should work.

I think YOU should stay out of politics if THIS is how you think it should be. Reasonable people don't want this in politics.

No thanks, I will stay active in politics.

You said before you are against the two party system, right?

So you are already out of politics, whether you want to be or not.

Oh, please.

Your opinion on how little my voice matters in politics is meaningless and empty.

You are the one being led by your nose with illusions. Your world of politics is an illusion.

And yet, a Democrat or Republican will win the Presidency and the House and Senate will have all but one or two seats occupied by Democarts or Repbulicans.

But yeah...it's an illusion.

Looking forward to parts 2-6. The denials are comedy gold. Makes it better.

a reply to: kruphix

To live a life totally devoid of anger is a sign of mental sickness.

It is only natural to be angry at things, maybe not bad grades, but still.

Rampant corruption from the ruling oligarchy should be a somewhat constant source of anger.

The de facto condoning / downright defending of what's in that video is DEPLORABLE!

Likewise:

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Merely saying things to Trump supporters is inciting "imminent lawless action" because there are so many unstable people within that group that shouting questions/slogans triggers them to respond with violence?

That's essentially your argument as I see it.

Schenck v. United States is actually a case about a man (Charles Schenck) and his cohort who were arrested under the Sedition Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets that encouraged people to resist the draft.

In your haste to figure out how a crime was committed, you've inadvertantly cited a case of political speech being quashed by the government.

I didn't inadvertently cite anything.

I cited a portion of the summary of the evolution from the Schneck case to where we are now.

If you say and do things with the intention of inciting violence, that's not protected speech. That was my point.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Stop speaking logic and getting in the way of their faux outrage.

How dare Democrats organize protests...shame on them.

I mean, what are they so upset about. It's not like they are selling out their own morals to defend a sexual predator or anything.

All the people assaulted at the rallies should immediately file a class action lawsuit against the DNC.



And further investigations into if they were coordinating the BLM riots for related deaths / injuries / property damages / etc class action lawsuit(s).

a reply to: kruphix

Because no one should be outraged about the regime planning, and conducting politically motivated violence on opposition political parties.

This is the exact same # that America condemns third world dictatorships for.

Enjoy your mindless obedience to the state and the party.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is in no way analogous to yelling "Trump is a Nazi" at people in a line waiting to get into a rally. Yelling "fire" isn't about "out of control emotions" it's an alarm that there's imminent danger which causes people to panic.

On the other hand, yelling "Trump is a racist!" would be a statement of political belief and the person who acted violently in response is the one who is actually doing something wrong.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The de facto condoning / downright defending of what's in that video is DEPLORABLE!

Likewise:

Wow wow wow.

So voter fraud in the thousands in one place now on video!
The MSM will be spitting nails ... they have built a narrative around Trump being wrong and he's right!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is in no way analogous to yelling "Trump is a Nazi" at people in a line waiting to get into a rally. Yelling "fire" isn't about "out of control emotions" it's an alarm that there's imminent danger which causes people to panic.

On the other hand, yelling "Trump is a racist!" would be a statement of political belief and the person who acted violently in response is the one who is actually doing something wrong.

Stop trying to derail the thread please...
We're trying to discuss the underhand and corrupt DNC.