Democratic heads roll after video shows agitators planted at Trump rallies

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So what do you say to O'Keefe's own narration saying that they were "brainstorming"?

Do you brainstorm about a hypothetical or about an actual past event?

a reply to: kruphix

It's Pure B.S. . My B.S. Meter just went Off it's Scale on that Piece of Work .

a reply to: kruphix

Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just thick??? I said "Fired, quit, stepped back... Doesn't matter". The Point is they are no longer working with the DNC, and from everybody's point of view that should be a good thing.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: kruphix

It's Pure B.S. . My B.S. Meter just went Off it's Scale on that Piece of Work .

How is it B.S. when it's James O'Keefe's own words in the video he release?

a reply to: kruphix

Just Creamer, your changing the story Kruphix

Robert Creamer -- husband of Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky -- announced his resignation in a statement after conservative activist James O'Keefe released a video under his organization Project Veritas Action, which showed Creamer and other operatives purportedly discussing methods for inciting violence at rallies for the Republican nominee.

www.cnn.com...

No mention of the organization he works for.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: kruphix

Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you just thick??? I said "Fired, quit, stepped back... Doesn't matter". The Point is they are no longer working with the DNC.

The point is, it does matter.

Even the title of this thread, "heads roll", is misleading.

You see, it seems like some people want to do a victory dance because the video is getting people "fired"...but only one person was fired, and he deserved it. Not for his actions, IMO, but for his complete ignorance about how to talk.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So what do you say to O'Keefe's own narration saying that they were "brainstorming"?

Do you brainstorm about a hypothetical or about an actual past event?

Can't have it both ways....so the supposed donor was leading him on right? Don't people leading others on tend to go with the hypothetical to get the person they are leading to open up?

a reply to: kruphix

Bob Creamer is stepping back because he doesn't want this to be a distraction in the election.

Seems every politician who is grabbing pussy or involved in potential treason uses that line a lot.

I mean who would want a silly thing like a series of felonies distract you from the serious issues this country faces.

a reply to: JinMI

I'm not sure what your post means.

What do you mean by "just Creamer"?

a reply to: kruphix

Bob Creamer, the subject of the OP.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So what do you say to O'Keefe's own narration saying that they were "brainstorming"?

Do you brainstorm about a hypothetical or about an actual past event?

Can't have it both ways....so the supposed donor was leading him on right? Don't people leading others on tend to go with the hypothetical to get the person they are leading to open up?

Huh?

The fake donor (who seems like they committed some crimes themselves), was suggesting a voter fraud scheme to Foval.

Foval went along with it, because they are a potential donor and they are catering to them to get their money. Foval passed them on to Creamer, again during the face to face talk with the donor...he goes along with it. Later he calls Foval and tells him he isn't touching it with a 10 foot poll (why do you and others seem to ignore this part?). Foval then passes the fake donor off to Vargas, and once again, Vargas entertains the donor but pushes them off to maybe the 2020 election.

Honestly, it is a very common tactic when you are courting a donor/investor/grantor and you want their money but don't want to commit to their own personal agenda.

a reply to: kruphix

No, it doesn't matter, you and others are making it an issue, what we all should be talking about is that our political process has gotten rid of some the appearance of impropriety and corruption, because isn't that what we want from our political process/government... no corruption/impropriety or even the appearance of such???

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kruphix

Bob Creamer, the subject of the OP.

What about him?

He didn't resign from his position at Democracy Partners, if that is what you are suggesting.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: kruphix

No, it doesn't matter, you and others are making it an issue, what we all should be talking about is that our political process has gotten rid of some the appearance of impropriety and corruption, because isn't that what we want from our political process/government... no corruption/impropriety or even the appearance of such???

I think that is a little naive to believe in.

No government in the history of the world has been without corruption.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So what do you say to O'Keefe's own narration saying that they were "brainstorming"?

Do you brainstorm about a hypothetical or about an actual past event?

Can't have it both ways....so the supposed donor was leading him on right? Don't people leading others on tend to go with the hypothetical to get the person they are leading to open up?

Huh?

The fake donor (who seems like they committed some crimes themselves), was suggesting a voter fraud scheme to Foval.

Foval went along with it, because they are a potential donor and they are catering to them to get their money. Foval passed them on to Creamer, again during the face to face talk with the donor...he goes along with it. Later he calls Foval and tells him he isn't touching it with a 10 foot poll (why do you and others seem to ignore this part?). Foval then passes the fake donor off to Vargas, and once again, Vargas entertains the donor but pushes them off to maybe the 2020 election.

Honestly, it is a very common tactic when you are courting a donor/investor/grantor and you want their money but don't want to commit to their own personal agenda.

Uh....no...Foval specifically talks about his agitator training in multiple states.....nothing suggestive....he even named the states.

originally posted by: kruphix

Honestly, it is a very common tactic when you are courting a donor/investor/grantor and you want their money but don't want to commit to their own personal agenda.

And maybe this is the root of the problem, maybe people should show some integrity and just tell the donor suggesting illegal activities NO we don't operate that way. how hard can that be???

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kruphix

Bob Creamer, the subject of the OP.

What about him?

He didn't resign from his position at Democracy Partners, if that is what you are suggesting.

Interesting....how are you so sure he didn't resign his position there? Sure he was a founder but the CNN story DID say he resigned:

Robert Creamer -- husband of Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky -- announced his resignation in a statement after conservative activist James O'Keefe released a video under his organization Project Veritas Action, which showed Creamer and other operatives purportedly discussing methods for inciting violence at rallies for the Republican nominee.

He also said he stepped back from the campaign....maybe he did both. It isn't likely his company is very fond of him after this....it has garnered quite a bit of attention that likely has cost other contracts.....or will cost them.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

So what do you say to O'Keefe's own narration saying that they were "brainstorming"?

Do you brainstorm about a hypothetical or about an actual past event?

Can't have it both ways....so the supposed donor was leading him on right? Don't people leading others on tend to go with the hypothetical to get the person they are leading to open up?

Huh?

The fake donor (who seems like they committed some crimes themselves), was suggesting a voter fraud scheme to Foval.

Foval went along with it, because they are a potential donor and they are catering to them to get their money. Foval passed them on to Creamer, again during the face to face talk with the donor...he goes along with it. Later he calls Foval and tells him he isn't touching it with a 10 foot poll (why do you and others seem to ignore this part?). Foval then passes the fake donor off to Vargas, and once again, Vargas entertains the donor but pushes them off to maybe the 2020 election.

Honestly, it is a very common tactic when you are courting a donor/investor/grantor and you want their money but don't want to commit to their own personal agenda.

Uh....no...Foval specifically talks about his agitator training in multiple states.....nothing suggestive....he even named the states.

What does that have to do with what my post was addressing?

I already said Foval deserved to be fired for his stupidity and his loose lips.

We were discussing Creamer and the overall process of shuffling a potential donor around when you want to get their donation, but you don't want to give in to their crazy personal agendas.

a reply to: kruphix

So instead of trying to do better and keep it to a minimum we just roll over and accept it??? Maybe you are part of the problem, ever think of that?

originally posted by: LockNLoad

originally posted by: kruphix

Honestly, it is a very common tactic when you are courting a donor/investor/grantor and you want their money but don't want to commit to their own personal agenda.

And maybe this is the root of the problem, maybe people should show some integrity and just tell the donor suggesting illegal activities NO we don't operate that way. how hard can that be???

It's obvious you have never had to deal with operating on a budget solely based on donors/investors/grantors.