Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Riiiiiiiiiiight...

It's all staged.

Gotcha

No, it's that O'Keefe claim to fame is the ACORN stunt. In which he took footage taken in secret, edited it to hell and then grossly misrepresented it to the national media.

Oh no... I know where you're going...

I'm just curious... I've seen the unedited version for that film, and it's still damning.

Now, it isn't as if it's that hard to believe a campaign staffer might be corrupt. No problem believing that.

Key word is "might". Although... kinda hard to believe otherwise.

But given O'Keefe's record in this very thing... I mean you know how it goes, fool me once...

Now you've really pique my interest on how you get your news information... Please realize I'm not "picking on you"... I wonder how news of American events are portrayed in foreign markets.

I believe the fact that the guy resigned the day it was released and the campaign publicly called it an error in judgment lends some credibility to it, personally.

 whembly wrote:
I'm just curious... I've seen the unedited version for that film, and it's still damning.

When I can I'll watch the unedited footage. Though even that's dodgy considering O'Keefe, who claimed to be showing unedited footage with the ACORN stunt, when it was grossly edited.

Key word is "might". Although... kinda hard to believe otherwise.

Sorry, to clarify, I meant 'might' as a most general statement - I have no idea about this guy or his case, but reading that a congressional staffer might try electoral fraud strikes me as not hard to believe at all. But then when I see it's hidden footage from O'Keefe, I'm inclined to believe that it's probably lies.

Now you've really pique my interest on how you get your news information... Please realize I'm not "picking on you"... I wonder how news of American events are portrayed in foreign markets.

I don't know anything about this other than this thread. I haven't had time to look it up.

And this won't get one second's coverage over here. I mean, we follow your politics way more than you follow ours, but not to the point where a scandal about the staffer of a congressman gets news coverage. If it's a senator, or if it's got some weird sex angle it'll get picked up, but not this.

My knowledge of O'Keefe comes from having originally read the story about ACORN break, and taking it at face value that the organisation could do something so terrible. Then I kept following it as what, four or five seperate inquiries, including one from GAO, all found the video was heavily edited and that the original events claimed did not take place at all. Now that isn't something I got from US news either, by the time those reports came through everyone was bored with the issue, and the fact it was all bs got no coverage at all.

That's kind of how lying for profit works. Claim outrageous bs, and while you will get found out, by then everyone's moved on to other things. ACORN has lost it's funding, so you won at politics, even if you had to lie to get there.

Having this break just a couple of weeks before the election seems to be quite similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I believe the fact that the guy resigned the day it was released and the campaign publicly called it an error in judgment lends some credibility to it, personally.

Except that's what happened in the ACORN and PBS 'scandals'. People resigned, and when the facts finally hit it was shown there was really nothing there.

 sebster wrote:
Except that's what happened in the ACORN and PBS 'scandals'. People resigned, and when the facts finally hit it was shown there was really nothing there.

Not quite, no.

 whembly wrote:
... I wonder how news of American events are portrayed in foreign markets.

There are many English language news web sites from around the world including UK, India, Japan, Australia, etc. It will give a very broad range of views.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I believe the fact that the guy resigned the day it was released and the campaign publicly called it an error in judgment lends some credibility to it, personally.

He might have resigned to draw a line under the whole thing and completely dissociate himself from the campaign, in order to limit any damage of perceptions.

If there was genuine evidence of voter fraud the police would be investigating.

No crime was committed for the police to investigate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

He might have resigned to draw a line under the whole thing and completely dissociate himself from the campaign, in order to limit any damage of perceptions.

If there was genuine evidence of voter fraud the police would be investigating.

There doesn't need to be a police investigation for these guys to accomplish their goal. They can say, "We went up to this Democratic campaign director, proposed voter fraud, and he suggested ways for us to go about doing it," and be, to all appearances, absolutely correct. That's plenty damaging without a conviction.

That's my point exactly.

A suggestion of malarkey is created and in the fevered atmosphere of the election season the "victim" will be compelled to resign to protect his campaign from public opinion.

The resignation is then presented as proof that something really was happening.

Obviously only rather naive people would be taken in, but there are plenty of them around.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's my point exactly.

A suggestion of malarkey is created and in the fevered atmosphere of the election season the "victim" will be compelled to resign to protect his campaign from public opinion.

The resignation is then presented as proof that something really was happening.

Obviously only rather naive people would be taken in, but there are plenty of them around.

I'm not sure I understand. You're suggesting that this gentleman did not in fact suggest ways of committing voter fraud when presented with a person asking for advice on how to do it, and approvingly suggest that the individual look into it?

No, he's suggesting that the gentleman could have been approached by a "concerned citizen" about ways that voter fraud potentially could be committed and suggested to said "concerned citizen" that they look into it.

Said "concerned citizen" turns out to be a member of the opposing political party, with a history of doing this kind of thing and turning it into an "Ah-ha! Gotcha!" moment with all of his interactions with the campaign member meticulously recorded and subsequently edited for effect.

Campaign member will have no evidence to deny it, campaign sees best way to succeed is to dump campaign member and move on.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, he's suggesting that the gentleman could have been approached by a "concerned citizen" about ways that voter fraud potentially could be committed and suggested to said "concerned citizen" that they look into it.

Said "concerned citizen" turns out to be a member of the opposing political party, with a history of doing this kind of thing and turning it into an "Ah-ha! Gotcha!" moment with all of his interactions with the campaign member meticulously recorded and subsequently edited for effect.

Campaign member will have no evidence to deny it, campaign sees best way to succeed is to dump campaign member and move on.

Watched the video yet?

Don't have to.

Project Veritas is known for doing exactly what I said. Their "undercover operatives" basically practice a method of approaching their targets as concerned citizens and then recording everything before editing it to make the opposition look as bad as possible.

Since the opposition has no clue they should be covering themselves, they do no such recording.

Hopefully the Democrats will start wising up and start recording everything.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's my point exactly.

A suggestion of malarkey is created and in the fevered atmosphere of the election season the "victim" will be compelled to resign to protect his campaign from public opinion.

The resignation is then presented as proof that something really was happening.

Obviously only rather naive people would be taken in, but there are plenty of them around.

I'm not sure I understand. You're suggesting that this gentleman did not in fact suggest ways of committing voter fraud when presented with a person asking for advice on how to do it, and approvingly suggest that the individual look into it?

I'm suggesting there are various reasons why he might have made those remarks, among which the intention to commit voter fraud might have been one, but probably wasn't.