It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING: O'Keefe Video #3

page: 8
99
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Maybe now both right and left will come together and admit Citizens United was a mistake and super pacs should be done away with


Yeah right. To hell with the money right? *rolls eyes*

Once you grease the hand, that hand will be stretched forward indefinitely.

They will use that greased hand to lube up any dissidents wth the power to clean theirs.

No coming back now.




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

World trade has been going on for hundreds of years! The difference is our country puts onerous laws on the companies and makes them unable to compete with slave labor anti environmental countries. That's just stupid. Make it a even playing field, start putting on tariffs to with provisions about environmental concerns and slave labor, when they come up to modern standards remove the tariffs. Penalize currency manipulators like China so it's a fair playing field. It's simple folks.

Make them HONOR the trade agreements and stop playing games by putting controls on our products which are BETTER and more preferred but priced out by the governing bodies of said countries. In other words, renegotiate NAFTA and GATT.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix




Unless the Clinton campaign came up with the entire plan and handed it to the PAC...nothing illegal was done. Just because Creamer may have heard Clinton say she likes the idea, doesn't mean a thing.


If Hillary wants ducks she's getting ducks is basically what was said. Then he said, "Don't tell anyone I said that". Come on, are you so myopic in your support of these criminals you can't see truth when it's plainly there?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix




This is basically O'Keefe's whole argument...but it's not illegal...and he doesn't even have proof of any collusion. All he has is, "Clinton liked the duck idea". I think it is hilarious how far O'Keefe is stretching for this.


What part of NO communication between candidate and PACS and no paying them do you not get? Hillary broke the law created after Watergate.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




O'Keefe has refused to release broader or unedited footage to ANYONE..cuz it doesn't fit his story.



Do you hold that same standard to Hillary who won't release her speeches but were released by Wikileaks and shows she says on thing to Wall Street and another to the "stupid voters"..... her words. She has contempt for everyone not just Republicans. She thinks you all supporting her a losers. She calls black's N****** and the media is silent on those accusations. She rude, mean and violent according to Secret Service agents who worked for her. She's just a nasty woman.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Maybe now both right and left will come together and admit Citizens United was a mistake and super pacs should be done away with


Only when the people who so hate it can admit the government fugged it up by arguing that their interpretation of campaign finance law did indeed give the government absolute right to ban campaign speech it didn't like ... like books and other such forms of media.

That was the exact argument the admin lawyer was making and one of the key reasons the decision swung the way it did.

Do you want a government who can ban books because they might be perceived as being politically negative about a candidate? I thought that was one of the key things the 1st Amendment was designed to protect.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No one is disputing that he stepped back because of the video, where did you get that from? It's right there in his released statement.

What the other member claimed is that the Hillary campaign pressured him to step down (which he didn't even do).

So the logical stance is to accept the facts as we know them, which is Creamer stepped back from his campaign activities but with no indicated pressure from the Clinton campaign.



TAT wrote the following to you:


You have proof he 'voluntarily' (sans internal or external pressure) stepped down?


Obviously, the external pressure of the Project Veritas videos -- at a minimum -- are what caused him to step back. Possibly internal pressure, stemming from the videos, were a factor, too.

You can offer no other logical reason for him stepping back.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnifiedSerenity
a reply to: kruphix




This is basically O'Keefe's whole argument...but it's not illegal...and he doesn't even have proof of any collusion. All he has is, "Clinton liked the duck idea". I think it is hilarious how far O'Keefe is stretching for this.


What part of NO communication between candidate and PACS and no paying them do you not get? Hillary broke the law created after Watergate.


But that isn't the law.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe you should get the actual start of the discussion before you step in without knowing the facts.

Here is what he originally said that started this conversation.




Lol...Okay...Creamer wasn't "Let go"...He was actively encouraged "step down" from the camp


I'm asking him for proof that Creamer was "actively encouraged to step down".

He has yet to provide that.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Man, the troops are really dug in in their trenches and not budging despite the heavy artillery rolling in.

One question I have, has Disney weighed in?

Pretty sure donald is their trademarked property and they generally take a dim view of that property being used outside of licensed events.

This may be a minor quibble in this circus, but the clowns are running the show and all I have are peanuts to throw.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
I'm asking him for proof that Creamer was "actively encouraged to step down".

He has yet to provide that.


He proved it with prima facie evidence: The active fallout from the Project Veritas videos 'encouraged him to step down.'

Do you have another logical alternate explanation?


edit on 24-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Man, the troops are really dug in in their trenches and not budging despite the heavy artillery rolling in.

One question I have, has Disney weighed in?

Pretty sure donald is their trademarked property and they generally take a dim view of that property being used outside of licensed events.

This may be a minor quibble in this circus, but the clowns are running the show and all I have are peanuts to throw.


Well we know the Disney CEO is a big donor to Hillary.

Ironic.




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kruphix
I'm asking him for proof that Creamer was "actively encouraged to step down".

He has yet to provide that.


He proved it with prima facie evidence: The active fallout from the Project Veritas videos 'encouraged him to step down.'

Do you have another logical alternate explanation?



LOL.

No, a video can't "encourage" anyone.

You try so hard...but you don't seem to have a firm grasp on logic.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Does it really matter if Creamer quit or was "asked" to quit?

The cat is out of the bag regardless.

And his old felony conviction(s) still stand.

He could get another conviction soon enough.

And don't forget his wife is a U.S. Congresswoman.

I wonder how she feels today?


edit on Oct-24-2016 by xuenchen because: dreamed and creamed



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
So after all the hype, the best that little brat has is a guy wearing a duck suit holding a placard about Trumps tax returns.

LOL That's pathetic.

Duckgazi!!!

Call Trey!

K~



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Why would Disney object to the DNC and a PAC using their beloved character to incite violence at a political rally?
Donald 'Bird dog' Duck.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
There is no level Hillary won't stoop to in her attempt to secure her throne...

Using an ICONIC cartoon character, to interfere and antagonize her opponent's supporters in an effort to push a narrative, is beyond the pale...

She's already been triggered by a harmless frog meme, now she has soiled the reputation of one of the most recognizable characters in cartoon history...

To do so in violating federal election law is just icing on the cake..

Is this the person we want ruling the country?





posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: kruphix
I'm asking him for proof that Creamer was "actively encouraged to step down".

He has yet to provide that.


He proved it with prima facie evidence: The active fallout from the Project Veritas videos 'encouraged him to step down.'

Do you have another logical alternate explanation?



LOL.

No, a video can't "encourage" anyone.

You try so hard...but you don't seem to have a firm grasp on logic.



Ridic. This video AND THE FALLOUT most certainly "encouraged" him to step back. This particular point in the discussion is laughably inane.

ETA: Does a $100 million jackpot encourage people to buy lottery tickets? Please. The idea that only people speaking encouraging words can possibly encourage someone to do something is absolutely laughable. And Creamer may have actually been specifically asked to step back. But if he wasn't, then certainly, the words of people during the fallout did.


edit on 24-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

I am going to make a prediction...any civil cases resulting from the Project Veritas videos will be rejected or dropped or thrown out. The correct defendants won't be named, there will be no standing under the laws argued, or the legal arguments will be intentionally weak...or something else will cause them to fail.


I still believe that the program allegedly exposed by Project Veritas most likely included recruits who also 'portrayed' violent Trump supporters.

I noticed that the case of one Trump supporter -- charged after his alleged violence at a rally -- has been postponed until AFTER the election.

Link

I hope others will keep an eye on this case and whether it goes any further. There are a lot of stories I hope people continue following after the election. The resolution of many 'issues' raised in this election will be telling.

Some are total BS. Some are not.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I have wondered about this recently. We all know Clinton is dirty, criminal and corrupt. The facts are undeniable by anyone with reason. But when people vote for this known corrupt criminal, knowing she won't uphold the Constitution any more (and probably worse) than Obama...aren't those voters committing treason?

I mean...when camp guards in Germany are held accountable for following the orders of Hitler, they are tried for war crimes. What do the voters get when they knowing elect a mafia-like, organized criminal President?



new topics




 
99
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join