Both Project Veritas Undercover Investigations now uploaded to YT [IT'S RIGGED]

[Wesley Williams]

yes, because naturally, it peaked at its highest point of popularity. no video like this can sustain that many views per day, once all the people that are interested have seen it and it's not being talked about as new information, there aren't going to be as many people watching it. the same trend can be seen with any momentary hot topic.

Yes, it's probably largely due to it being taken off of YouTube trending and whatnot. I doubt there's some conspiracy going on to suppress the view count, seems more like it's just the left successfully shutting out/ignoring the videos.

[Ad Bot]

[McZealot]

Clinton is going to make a concession speech if she loses. I wonder if Annoying Orange would do the same, or just claim it was rigged against him. I think it would be a pretty big black stain on his career if he does.

[Tactical Nuke]

Clinton is going to make a concession speech if she loses. I wonder if Annoying Orange would do the same, or just claim it was rigged against him. I think it would be a pretty big black stain on his career if he does.

yeah I mean god forbid the campaign goes through what they say they're going to do and Annoying Orange calls them out on it

Hillary's concession speech should just be, "well we tried in every way we possibly could to rig the vote and Annoying Orange still won good on you Annoying Orange".

[Master Matthew²]

Hillary's concession speech should just be, "well we tried in every way we possibly could to rig the vote and Annoying Orange still won good on you Annoying Orange".

If she did that, I might not actually hate her stuff eating grin for a few small moments.

[Operator¹]

Why does everyone immediately dismiss these videos as a conspiracy? Who cares what the creator's track record looks like, there's no way he could have faked video footage of these people saying these things. Not to mention Scott Foval was fired and Bob Creamer resigned. That doesn't happen over fake footage.

iirc there were people who resigned over PVA's ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos

[mod-man]

Why does everyone immediately dismiss these videos as a conspiracy? Who cares what the creator's track record looks like

because people question the authenticity of a liar? but if im not mistaken, they're even blowing this part of the puzzle out of proportions too. thanks media!!

according to an interview with okeefe, this is what they mean by "convicted felon with a record of falsely editing video"

during the filming of the ACORN/Planned Parenthood videos, some of his footage was filmed on a government location that he didnt have permission to film on. thats the crime they're talking about when they say "editing practices". he used 'illegal' footage and edited it together to make his video. they sure try to make it sound like he edits things in favor of his own views, but what they really mean is that he was editing together a video with footage he shouldnt have

he did get in some legal trouble for doing so, but it wasn't anything felony level. it was a class B misdemeanor and all the charges were eventually dropped

[Wesley Williams]

iirc there were people who resigned over PVA's ACORN and Planned Parenthood videos

Yes but that happened a while after, once the backlash and effect on ACORN became evident. Scott Foval was fired 12 hours after these tapes were released. That doesn't exactly make him seem clean and like his words were taken "out of context".

[Master Matthew²]

Yes but that happened a while after, once the backlash and effect on ACORN became evident. Scott Foval was fired 12 hours after these tapes were released. That doesn't exactly make him seem clean and like his words were taken "out of context".

Exactly, the action taken was clearly to try and avoid legal prosecution.

[otto-san]

well to be fair, any sane organization would probably fire an employee that's been caught up in a national scandal since they don't want to be a part of their drama, but obv i'm sure the things he said offer additional concerns to them than just that lol

[Nonnel]

literally? By what definition? Are anarchist capitalists also authoritarian? In what way is Rand Paul actually authoritarian? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Literally as in they are directly correlated and are synonyms for one another. The political compass works in such a way that if you turn it clockwise, you will have the social right on the right and the social left on the left.

This second point doesn't make any sense, there is no correlation to being a free-market capitalist and being socially libertarian, so I'll skip it.

Rand Paul is "authoritarian" in that he is 100% pro-life, prefers gay marriage to be decided by the states because he doesn't personally believe in it, is against drug legalization, and is for intervention in Syria.
He is "libertarian" in that he believes drug use should be decriminalized, believes in gun rights, is against mandatory vaccinations, as well as believes the government should generally stay out of people's social and personal lives.
The mixture of these two is why he is not as far north as the other republican candidates but also why he's not as south as Ron Paul. He's not as much a libertarian as his pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization, and anti-war father, but he still is more than probably any other republican candidate.

[Master Matthew²]

Rand Paul is "authoritarian" in that he is 100% pro-life, prefers gay marriage to be decided by the states because he doesn't personally believe in it, is against drug legalization, and is for intervention in Syria.

intervention in Syria is a very very bad idea.

[Perry]

intervention in Syria is a very very bad idea.

If the US isn't supporting Syria, they're on Russia's side, which means they're against the people and are in favor of the current regime. If you were to compare the Syrian war to the Vietnam War, the US would currently be supporting viet cong, while russia would be supporting the regime.

The US does have the ability to just exit the conflict completely, but knowing the US, they won't ever exit it. The government is run on wartime economy, and like 90% of it is controlled by firearms company that make a killing off of wars. Either the US can take the moral high ground and fund the revolution in the name of democracy, or the US can side with russia for their own economic safety and help them bomb UN convoys and establish totalitarian rule over Syria

Knowing how spineless these people in the US are, they'll vote for the latter

[Master Matthew²]

If the US isn't supporting Syria, they're on Russia's side, which means they're against the people and are in favor of the current regime. If you were to compare the Syrian war to the Vietnam War, the US would currently be supporting viet cong, while russia would be supporting the regime.

The US does have the ability to just exit the conflict completely, but knowing the US, they won't ever exit it. The government is run on wartime economy, and like 90% of it is controlled by firearms company that make a killing off of wars. Either the US can take the moral high ground and fund the revolution in the name of democracy, or the US can side with russia for their own economic safety and help them bomb UN convoys and establish totalitarian rule over Syria

Knowing how spineless these people in the US are, they'll vote for the latter

Yeah, you better hope we vote the latter, unless you like nuclear ashfire.

[Perry]

Yeah, you better hope we vote the latter, unless you like nuclear ashfire.

That's an extremely unlikely case. I don't know where you get this notion that Russia will instantly commit nuclear Self Delete on the slightest sign of US intervention, even though the US has literally been funding billions of dollars into Syrian rebels already. Its not like the introduction of a no-fly zone is instantly going to spark a war, it's just going to require a bunch of violent treaty talks.

Either way, choosing to preserve yourself over a less fortunate people is literally one of the first signs of spinelessness. Especially since you're kissing ass to a country that has blown up humanitarian aid convoys and gotten away from it. You're proudly advocating as a schoolyard nerd to suck up to the bully. Meanwhile, some of us actually believe in democracy and want to preserve it.

[Master Matthew²]

That's an extremely unlikely case. I don't know where you get this notion that Russia will instantly commit nuclear Self Delete on the slightest sign of US intervention, even though the US has literally been funding billions of dollars into Syrian rebels already. Its not like the introduction of a no-fly zone is instantly going to spark a war, it's just going to require a bunch of violent treaty talks.

Either way, choosing to preserve yourself over a less fortunate people is literally one of the first signs of spinelessness. Especially since you're kissing ass to a country that has blown up humanitarian aid convoys and gotten away from it. You're proudly advocating as a schoolyard nerd to suck up to the bully. Meanwhile, some of us actually believe in democracy and want to preserve it.

Not protecting some little stuff country in the middle of nowhere comprised of people who don't like us anyway =/= not believing in democracy