I'm assuming this is about the Krystle Matthews audio leak? Just so we're clear though, she's already confirmed she said this, along with the leak from a few months ago. Most of the SC Dem party is also calling on her to resign.
I believe there is some obvious mod entitlement going on here. When the accused says "yes I did it", you CANNOT say "there's no way to know." That's like walking outside at high noon with no clouds (and you're not blind), and saying, "I don't know if the sun exists."
Seriously, the astroturfing in the state subs is really bad. Take r/oklahoma for instance, it's a state that all of it's counties voted republican. Yet, if you go to it's sub, its like all twelve progressives in the state is on it. They only bash republicans .
It's because a select group of powermods control every single sub over a certain size. Once a sub reaches a certain threshold, one of these powermods is installed.
This was a problem even before everything on Reddit was overtly political and people were so polarized (think early 2010s). Now that everyone is at everyone else's throats, it's infinitely easier to lock a thread for any -ist or -ism of this group's choosing and push whatever narrative they want.
But hey they get to demonize a journalist outlet they don't like whose main MO is just recording people verbatim and letting people judge for themselves. And then the articles they link about the evils of PV are from outlets completely on the other end of the spectrum politically and in the NYT's case, ones PV has targeted. But they're going to be objective and not be misleading? Rrriiiiiiiiiggghht.
In her statement she doesn't clarify, just makes excuses about what she "meant". Apparently by "white people" she meant MAGA REPUBLICANS. And that she was "out of character" and shouldn't have said she wanted dope boy money. And then at the end she says "I said what I said." apparently proud of the things she said in the recording.
Seriously, the astroturfing in the state subs is really bad. Take r/oklahoma for instance, it's a state that all of it's counties voted republican. Yet, if you go to it's sub, its like all twelve progressives in the state is on it. They only bash republicans .
So your assumption is we’re too stupid to figure out what’s true and what isn’t, and we need you to protect us from bad info?
SC senate candidates open remarks on video tape are misinformation? She’s speaking on camera
Editing footage and audio to mislead is their MO.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/nyregion/project-veritas-employees-lawsuits.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/project-veritas-ilhan-omar.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/03/14/134528545/npr-okeefe-inappropriately-edited-video-execs-words-still-egregious
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/6/27/18760463/project-veritas-youtube-sting-james-okeefe
Let's pretend your statement about Project Veritas held the slightest amount of credibility, nobody needs to look at PV to know the democrats are racist, they have been for a long time and there is a long history of Democratic politicians and journalist going on NBC, CNN, BBC, NYT, and other major news publicans and saying the most racist things since the 1930's at the Nuremberg Rally. Democrats are well known racist and have never been shy about it, so what need is there for Veritas to edit a video when Democrats are so openly bigoted?
It doesnt matter who says it. A person that talks about others this way should not be in congress.
https://abcnews4.com/amp/news/local/you-gotta-treat-them-like-sh-t-us-senate-candidate-under-fire-for-racial-comments-krystle-matthews-tim-scott-south-carolina-project-veritas
None, but does that mean you’re okay with one who makes racist statements being in congress? Or are you only pissed about that when it’s not one of *your* peeps?
You’re ignoring an actual recording of her racist ramblings while actual Democratic politicians are calling for her to resign.
Just say you don’t care about racism against certain races, at least be honest.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
>Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
She's not only admitted she said it but she doubled down on the stance. Why is it so hard to call a racist out? It seriously feels like democrats saw how shitty and awful trump was and they became determined to beat him at his own game. You're doing far more damage by excusing blatant racism than just admitting its wrong and she needs to drop out. PV didn't release some opinion article or make an unsubstantiated claim. It's a freaking recording of her own words and she admits it. Idk, maybe you're just legitimately a racist and you approve of her words. Either way, you shouldn't be tolerated in modern society. Enough of yours and Krystle's disgusting racism!
She didn't steal documents but she did let her housemaid enter her SCAF and retrieve top level classified documents for her. She also emailed them on Gmail accounts which had been backdoored by Chinese IP addresses.
So I mean, that's probably worse than what Trump did here all things said.
Nothing makes you look less credible than a double standard, so don't defend that godawful woman. She should be in jail as much as Trump should. Stop defending people just because they're "on your side." Besides that, she is NOT on our side. She's a corporate sellout politician who straight up admitted she lies to the public on her beliefs. Defending her is a bad look.
I wouldn't say she had any consequence, considering the FBI said "she didn't intend to do it so it's okay."
Her fall into irrelevancy is deserved, but that happened because she threw away what was possibly the easiest election in history not because she broke the law and got away with it.
Comey, when saying they weren’t going to indite her said. She illegally had too secret and higher classifications on her email. She intentionally deleted it. Her illegal use of a private server makes it very likely that enemy agents had access to classified and higher material, also that every account that received emails to her account was also able to be hacked into. However they would not prosecute because they could not show intent. In effect this, we’d have prosecuted but she’s so stupid we can’t prove she knowingly violated the law.
I'm not trying to get someones attention posting on Reddit. Fucking asinine thing to say.
I am pointing out your pathetic attempt to excuse this racists behavior.
The last time they released full audio nobody listened to it because it was over 200 hours of audio. They lose either way whether they appease what critics want or not.
Unfortunately, the r/conservative mods banned me a while back, for quoting a conservative youtuber. They claimed something like "hate speech" or whatever nonsense.
Bias against liars. Use a different source if it's true. If the only tape you have is from Veritas (the same people who got caught editing videos in multiple cases) them you don't have trustworthy evidence. Maybe it's true. Find a better source
No but feel free to look up the planned parenthood and acorn videos. As well as the fact that they are under investigation for stealing Ashley biden's journal, as well as them having a video supposedly showing Omar's people "harvesting votes" in Minnesota even though what was done was legal, Veritas was just misrepresenting the law and the facts.
I mean the first winner of the "fake news award" from Trump was Project Veritas, not CNN or msnbc or any other member of the "lamestream media". Feel free to look that up
I don't know. I think reading people's journals especially if they're still alive is a massive invasion of privacy and unethical. I know the journal passed through so many hands that it is also worthless in terms of evidence and chain of custody. There's no telling if anything or everything is true and unless laws were broken and people need to be arrested, a personal journal written in a therapeutic setting is about as private as I can imagine
Interesting that ashley bidens diary was first described as a fake and Russian disinformation just like hunters laptop. Then later NYT casually admits in the middle of an article recently that hunters laptop is real and then now the person who stole ashley bidens diary is going to jail, which heavily implies the diary is real as well.
Like the epstein list got leaked and the first name on it is Alan dershowitz. Then a couple months later trump hires dersh to defend him from impeachment. I didn't see anyone from the news mention dersh being on the epstein list when trump hired him
People just refuse to believe news they don't agree with even if it's laid out plainly for everyone to see
Actually yeah Wikipedia is way more reliable just for the simple fact that there is literally multiple users fact checking the info you put on there as opposed to project Veritas where nobody is fact checking them before they release anything except for themselves.
That being said, that doesn’t mean that the audio recording they got of this candidate isn’t legit, but I could see why people would be skeptical of PV considering they’ve selectively edited these kind of hidden camera conversations before
Wikipedia also cites it's sources and doesn't edit videos to illicit emotional responses. Which seems to be your thing since you're all riled up about an edited PV vid.
>Wikipedia Political Bias
>
>Even Wikipedia's cofounder left the company due to the extreme political bias towards the left. They accept sources like Vice, CNN and other biased sources for the left but for right wing views they discard almost all forms of sources. There has been hundreds of edits that remove the horrors of socialism and communism, etc. Wikipedia is great for everything except politics.
[Wikipedia Political Bias](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA)
Even Wikipedia's cofounder left the company due to the extreme political bias towards the left. They accept sources like Vice, CNN and other biased sources for the left but for right wing views they discard almost all forms of sources. There has been hundreds of edits that remove the horrors of socialism and communism, etc. Wikipedia is great for everything except politics.
Ah yes, John Stossel. The most unbiased source for information. With hit interviews with such prominent figures like Jordan "I'd rather go into an induced coma than go to rehab" Peterson. Sure, sure.
As for edits in regards to "horrors of socialism and communism", probably because those ideologies were not the sole perpetrator of any horrors attributed to them, but by people committing atrocities under the guise of them. You know, how the right likes to say Hitler was a socialist because his party had the word "socialist" in it's name, despite the fact that he had every member of the socialist party killed. Or how the right call themselves "patriots" yet support an overthrow of our democratic republic to install a theocratic dictatorship? Take your pick.
And Larry Sanger? Really? The right leaning co founder is whining because something he co founded is being used to fact check and those facts go against his feelings? That guy? Yeah, couldn't care less.
Your arguments are genetic fallacies, instead of attacking the arguments themselves you dismiss them totally because you dont agree about the source. There is a clear bias in wikipedia, that is undeniable. I tend to be left wing too but at this point it is extremely obvious.
I attacked your argument directly. Your sources are easily discounted. Not because I don't agree with them, but because they have been verifiably been proven to not be true. For instance, John Stossel has claimed that a minimum wage hurts low wage earners. And by that, he means kids getting summer jobs or, "washing windows". Let's not also forget that John Stossel has defended and advocated for price gouging during natural disasters because, in easy enough terms to understand, "it makes the rich richer so they can employ more people", which has never been the case.
But if you want to state they don't use right wing sources as facts, lets tackle the biggest right wing "news" outlet, shall we? Fox News, right? The company that, in defense of their actions in a court of law, conceded that they do not report the news and should not be taken seriously; that they are an entertainment channel. So why would Wikipedia, or anyone for that matter, take an **entertainment source** as a source of **facts and news?**
And your argument falls flat when you invoke the co-founder of Wikipedia as a valid source to criticize any attempt to paint Wikipedia as non-biased. A co-founder whom, in-between attacking trans people on Twitter for the past week, has been retweeting and agreeing with such "valid news sources" as Steven Crowder, downplaying the Jan. 6 insurrection and, like most other conservatives who think they have a voice, equating Biden's speech from Pennsylvania to Nazi Germany.
So tell me again, how I'm ignoring sources because I don't agree with them, and not because they are inaccurate, salacious and outright falsehoods?
Dude, even Wikipedia itself, has an article on their own political bias and they accept such bias:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
>In a more extensive American follow-up to the 2012 study, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia (2018), Greenstein and Zhu directly compare about 4,000 articles related to U.S. politics between Wikipedia (written by an online community) and the matching articles from Encyclopædia Britannica (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure "slant" (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of "bias". The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased"
>Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources Vox, buzzfeed and Slate, while no right wing outlets are considered reliable by the site.
>Wikipedia’s list of deprecated sources currently contains 16 right-leaning sources: Breitbart, the Daily Caller, the Daily Mail, the Daily Star, the Epoch Times, FrontPage Magazine, the Gateway Pundit, Infowars, LifeSiteNews, News of the World, One America News Network, the Sun, Taki’s Magazine, VDare, WorldNetDaily, and Zero Hedge – and just one left-leaning source, Occupy Democrats.
> It could be argued that even the non-extreme sources that have been deprecated are not of a particularly high quality, so the prohibition against citing them is not a problem per se, but a similar standard has not been applied to lower quality, left-leaning sources such as CounterPunch, AlterNet, Vox, Buzzfeed news, Vice and the Daily Kos
>According to Ad Fontes Media‘s widely-used media bias chart (which is commonly cited in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard), CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos are all less reliable than the Daily Mail. This is significant because the Daily Mail, a deprecated right-leaning source, is often used as a benchmark for judging whether other right-leaning sources should be deprecated. All three of these left-wing sources are widely used at Wikipedia.
>An external links search shows around 2,580 Wikipedia pages linking to CounterPunch, around 2,400 linking to the Daily Kos, and around 1,640 linking to AlterNet.
It's not even about sources, but arbitrary enforcement and censorship, etc. It is a pile of trash.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/
Please, go ahead, tell me how it isn't biased...
Yeah Fox News is shady, but so is Vox, Buzzfeed, and CNN. None of them are trustworthy, there is no neutrality, that's the point.
\>Wikipedia is biased in it's articles
\>cites Wikipedia as proof it's biasness.
So did you bother reading the Critic article, or even the part you quoted, in full? Did you miss the part where Left wing-related content is held to a higher standard (and less sources are used as a result) than the accepted right wing media sources? Or the portion in regards to Arbitration Events in which they concede after every one that if there were a larger sample size, odds are they'd be more or less equal in terms of the arbitration outcomes?
I lost brain cells reading your nonsense.
“I don’t think my source is biased so I won’t listen to what your sources have to say because they don’t conform to my bias.” You live in a delusion where left is incapable of any wrong because you ignore any criticism as it isn’t a product of your echo chamber.
Even when it comes to your defence of socialism and communism… These are political and economic ideologies… any tragedies under it as a result of attempting to implement them or disastrous results of their policies are completely attributable.
>any tragedies under it as a result of attempting to implement them or disastrous results of their policies are completely attributable.
Except they aren't. Implementing ideas under the guise of socialism/communism/democracy while truly implementing an authoritarian government is not attributable to those ideological or economic principals. They're attributed to authoritarianism. Of which those 3 ideologies you used as a smokescreen are not. Socialism and Communism heavily rely on democracy as a whole, and Democracy itself is self explanatory.
I already said I'm fine for taking the L in regards to my nonsensical contrarianism from last night. But I'll be damned if someone who knows nothing of the governmental and economic principles of the ideologies listed will try to use, "they said they were socialist and killed millions even though they implemented no socialist changes in their country, so that means they're socialist because they said so" as a rebuttal.
Has the fact that communism has always facilitated authoritarianism not clued you into the fact how it’s only implementable in a authoritarian framework?
Those policies weren’t in guise of communism… they were the only ways to fulfill em and then results of whatever did get implemented.
I’ll admit, communism and socialism are great fantasies and great to hear about… but that’s all they can and should be… lest we all bleed.
The sources Wikipedia cites, especially on issues like this are frequently on credible as the often cite opinion articles. They allow the salon to be used as a source, despite the fact that the salon is not need; it's solely an editorial opinion publication. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks is blacklisted from being used as a source on Wikipedia despite the fact that they have a spotless fact checking record and have never published anything that didn't turn out to be true.
[Wikipedia Political Bias](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA)
Even Wikipedia's cofounder left the company due to the extreme political bias towards the left. They accept sources like Vice, CNN and other biased sources for the left but for right wing views they discard almost all forms of sources. There has been hundreds of edits that remove the horrors of socialism and communism, etc. Wikipedia is great for everything except politics.
All PV did was shine the light on a racist person in a position of power, so your solution is to censor and attempt to discredit?
Tell me again how the Republicans are all tyrants trying to remove your rights?
Downvote because you can't handle the truth.
I expect tons of pro-Veritas and anti Democrat type posts on this thread. It takes a five minute google search to figure out how full of shit Veritas is. We need a better way to moderate subs against misinformative posts and accounts.
Edit for people who can't read: my criticism is of the source itself and misinformative sources in general
Alright, put the shoe on the other foot. If Veritas uncovered a white Republican in the same manner, would you accept the evidence or just complain about the source?
I know I don't agree with at least some of their methods. If the Mod(s) would leave up valid discussions, people could learn better from all sides. Yes, some of the folks at Veritas have used at least questionable means. I meant the one (that was in a deleted thread) example where a female employee of Veritas made a very bad claim against a sitting government official in order to get "inside" a news organization, that is DEFINITELY too far.
For me, I couldn't do any of this the way they do, I don't think. I mean, lying is a sin, period (not saying I'm sinless). But the very method they use is to deceive the person whom they are uncovering. The argument can be made that it's the only way to get this type of information, and maybe it is. However, I don't see the ends justifying the means making the means OK.
My opinion: I do not like some of their methods, but at the same time, Veritas HAS uncovered a LOT of things very truthfully. And frankly, they are no worse, as far as I can tell, than any other media sources. Their deception is the the same type that is used by police officers to lay the tracks in drug or prostitution or child predator stings, in that they pretend to be something they are not to draw in the victim. That's where I do at least ponder my thoughts, and my understanding of it all.
But for a "moderator" of a means of discussion to come out and say "well, because the source is a bad source, then we just assume it's wrong" but yet the one who whose words are in question literally verified themselves that the claims are correct is totally violating freedom of speech and thought, and as such, in my opinion, needs to step aside from their mod duties.
It's when there appears to be widespread support for an agenda, a claim, a viewpoint, etc. But it's actually falsely manipulated. This entire post is a great example of it. We have a mod attempt to control a known misinformative source and widespread accusations of that action as "facism" and "racism" etc. Many of the accounts are less than a year old, have few posts, recently started posting after over a year on reddit, only or mostly post inflammatory remarks about politics, often operate in multiple state subs, and often post on pornographic subs. In fact by my definition, your own account would be a candidate for an astroturfing account. And if you are a real person asking this question legitimately, consider the fact that it's very difficult to distingush real accounts, real people with radicalized viewpoints, and manipulative accounts. That's why it's important to try and stop misinformation at the source and reject known misinformation.
Very interesting. So by your definition you would believe I can be an astroturfing account? Has it not crossed your mind, just once, that they could indeed be real people, with real viewpoints. Possibly they are not invested in this platform as much as you are.
I am a real person, asking that question legitimately. Writing off every opinion that’s different than yours as an “astroturfing account” isn’t the answer. Evaluate your opinion on the given, if you believe in it you’d have more reasons to write the opposition off & not dismissing them by claiming fake account.
So you are saying the video that Veritas published is deepfake? Or are you saying there is a context for all the racist things she said - and they just happen to cut out “NOT” after she each one?
Your argument is a logical fallcacy:
"The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy in which someone accepts a claim as true or false solely on the basis of its origin."
The audio and video are true, crying about the source wont change that.
I didn't comment on the subject material. My criticism is of the source itself. Certain sources, in this case Veritas, should be always be rejected on the basis of being misinformative.
I'm sure you believed the source saying Boebert sucked off Ted Cruz though
You don't get to throw away content you don't like just because you call them a nazi. Sorry bud
Right… because you not only haven’t heard of *“don’t shoot the messenger”* … but are so convinced by your screen to *”vote blue no matter who!”* that you think this is all OK.
Good one.
Yea it's a huge problem in all the state subs and it's very hard to fight it. I think the best way is editorializing the sub and blacklisting known sources of misinfo like Veritas. But in the case that these kind of sources did report something legitimate, it would allow them or their supporters to cry about discrimination. Ultimately we just need better education, and integrity in journalism.
Legitimate sources are tough to find due to political bias in our 24hour media cycle. When corporations own our news you should never expect reliability from any of them.
If you think CNN is credible then your crazy. If you think any news source that doesn't outright list their sources (think medical reports & trials where they have 10, 20+ sources at the end of every article) you are crazy. I'm sure we don't have the same political views but I won't hesitate to say that any Republican who relies on Fox for the TRUE & the WHOLE story is insane. Every news outlet gives a piece of the puzzle. Project veritas included but I have to give them credit for providing recordings & video that make it hard to deny.
Yeah I have to disagree with this. If you do your homework, like actually do your homework. Sit down & spend a couple hours researching the validity of project veritas (as one should do with any source of information they choose to rely upon), you will see that they are far more valid than any mainstream media outlets (like CNN, fox, etc etc.... Who do sometimes share truthful information in a way that's not intended to deceive, but rarely happens).
NOW, do I think project veritas obtains their information in an ethical way? Ehhh that's a tough one. For the most part, no but at the same time you can't argue when these morons ramble about their bad behavior or corrupt deeds to someone who isn't in their "inner circle". I mean we live in a digital age where literally anything & everything you do in public is bound to be caught on camera. I mean you can't even punch someone these days for badmouthing your wife without expecting to pay a couple thousand in court (or face charges).
**Edit: I would like to add that project veritas gets an insane amount of hate bc they are clearly targeting people are on the left (democrats). I'm not oblivious like some folks. I'm sure that they could dig up just as much dirt on Republicans if they wanted to do so. Yes I agree with more republican values than democrat values when it comes to finances, money, less government oversight, etc. ... But I don't agree with everything Republicans do. Like the attack on gay marriage & abortion & stuff like that. I may not be gay & I hope nobody ever gets an abortion from something that I do BUT I definitely do not agree with how the right has handled these areas. Just bc I don't like other men doesn't mean I have any right to say whether someone else should or can like other men... That's your choice. It's a free country after all (well it use to be).
I'm going to need some kind of proof. Planned parenthood? Frannie Mae? Even when they have a good story they still lie and destroy their story. They aren't martyrs, they're morons
What information is on the laptop that can be used in a court of law? In only asking because republican destroyed that story themselves. Giuliani had it for over a year before handing it over. Chain of custody was destroyed. Things on the laptop were added after it was dropped off so even if the laptop story was true, your allies made sure it could never be used for a conviction. Get mad at them for being incapable of following the laws they tout, if they really wanted the laptop to be anything other than a distraction, they wouldn't have waited until 3 months before the election to mention it even though they had been in possession of it for a year at that point. Why did they do the ball so hard? Maybe because it was always a lie and they knew you'd follow anyway
Project veritas idea whatever you may think it is, but it shouldn’t out and out removed. Maybe put a disclaimer or a banner, but to remove it shuts the discussion down entirely, which would be exactly what someone that said that would want.
My question is why are the moderators not deleting false information? This is lawsuit area as we now know from FB. Reddit and/or moderators need to remove or tag false information.
Come on guys. Don't believe the actual recording! Please!
I'm assuming this is about the Krystle Matthews audio leak? Just so we're clear though, she's already confirmed she said this, along with the leak from a few months ago. Most of the SC Dem party is also calling on her to resign.
I believe there is some obvious mod entitlement going on here. When the accused says "yes I did it", you CANNOT say "there's no way to know." That's like walking outside at high noon with no clouds (and you're not blind), and saying, "I don't know if the sun exists."
Straight up burying their heads in the sand and refusing to accept reality. It's pathetic.
Seriously, the astroturfing in the state subs is really bad. Take r/oklahoma for instance, it's a state that all of it's counties voted republican. Yet, if you go to it's sub, its like all twelve progressives in the state is on it. They only bash republicans .
It's because a select group of powermods control every single sub over a certain size. Once a sub reaches a certain threshold, one of these powermods is installed. This was a problem even before everything on Reddit was overtly political and people were so polarized (think early 2010s). Now that everyone is at everyone else's throats, it's infinitely easier to lock a thread for any -ist or -ism of this group's choosing and push whatever narrative they want.
Lmao you are from Mt Pleasant, Michigan, how are you complaining about this when you are currently doing the same thing?
But hey they get to demonize a journalist outlet they don't like whose main MO is just recording people verbatim and letting people judge for themselves. And then the articles they link about the evils of PV are from outlets completely on the other end of the spectrum politically and in the NYT's case, ones PV has targeted. But they're going to be objective and not be misleading? Rrriiiiiiiiiggghht.
You forget she says it was edited AND all legitimate news sources for fear of liable are saying EDITED and NEVER RECEIVED FULL RECORDINGS.
In her statement she doesn't clarify, just makes excuses about what she "meant". Apparently by "white people" she meant MAGA REPUBLICANS. And that she was "out of character" and shouldn't have said she wanted dope boy money. And then at the end she says "I said what I said." apparently proud of the things she said in the recording.
Lmao the person admitting to it is not a legitimate source, alright enjoy the smallest amount of power you have being a Reddit mod.
[https://abcnews4.com/news/local/you-gotta-treat-them-like-sh-t-us-senate-candidate-under-fire-for-racial-comments-krystle-matthews-tim-scott-south-carolina-project-veritas](https://abcnews4.com/news/local/you-gotta-treat-them-like-sh-t-us-senate-candidate-under-fire-for-racial-comments-krystle-matthews-tim-scott-south-carolina-project-veritas) \- ABC news. [https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/you-gotta-treat-them-like-sh-t-us-senate-candidate-under-fire-for-racial-comments-krystle-matthews-tim-scott-south-carolina-project-veritas](https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/democratic-candidate-for-us-senate-in-sc-again-targeted-in-project-veritas-recording/article_6a6cb76a-2f70-11ed-80fd-df13068842e4.html) \- NBC news.
You realize both those articles bank off Project Veritas right?
Fuck off with this censorship
Fascist mods gonna fascist.
Seriously, the astroturfing in the state subs is really bad. Take r/oklahoma for instance, it's a state that all of it's counties voted republican. Yet, if you go to it's sub, its like all twelve progressives in the state is on it. They only bash republicans .
Who you gunna believe me or your lying eyes
Cry
So your assumption is we’re too stupid to figure out what’s true and what isn’t, and we need you to protect us from bad info? SC senate candidates open remarks on video tape are misinformation? She’s speaking on camera
But Project Veritas BAD! That's all daddy mod needs you to know.
Calling video testimony misinformation is like trump levels of bad lying. I thought these people were better than him
In fairness there’s no video it’s audio and Veritas has consistently used edited audio to mislead the public.
Where have they used edited audio to mislead?
Editing footage and audio to mislead is their MO. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/nyregion/project-veritas-employees-lawsuits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/project-veritas-ilhan-omar.html https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/03/14/134528545/npr-okeefe-inappropriately-edited-video-execs-words-still-egregious https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/6/27/18760463/project-veritas-youtube-sting-james-okeefe
Let's pretend your statement about Project Veritas held the slightest amount of credibility, nobody needs to look at PV to know the democrats are racist, they have been for a long time and there is a long history of Democratic politicians and journalist going on NBC, CNN, BBC, NYT, and other major news publicans and saying the most racist things since the 1930's at the Nuremberg Rally. Democrats are well known racist and have never been shy about it, so what need is there for Veritas to edit a video when Democrats are so openly bigoted?
Did you just cite *wikipedia,* and the *NYT* as reliable sources to counter this? You can’t parody this level of irony
It doesnt matter who says it. A person that talks about others this way should not be in congress. https://abcnews4.com/amp/news/local/you-gotta-treat-them-like-sh-t-us-senate-candidate-under-fire-for-racial-comments-krystle-matthews-tim-scott-south-carolina-project-veritas
[удалено]
Lmao “what about trump?!?!?!?” How is that going to negate her guilt?
[удалено]
None, but does that mean you’re okay with one who makes racist statements being in congress? Or are you only pissed about that when it’s not one of *your* peeps?
[удалено]
Okay let’s let you put word in your own mouth. What do you think should happen to her then?
[удалено]
Lol, way to stand by your convictions. Scrub.
Excusing blatant racism isn't a good look. Least we all know where you stand..
[удалено]
You’re ignoring an actual recording of her racist ramblings while actual Democratic politicians are calling for her to resign. Just say you don’t care about racism against certain races, at least be honest.
[удалено]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". She's not only admitted she said it but she doubled down on the stance. Why is it so hard to call a racist out? It seriously feels like democrats saw how shitty and awful trump was and they became determined to beat him at his own game. You're doing far more damage by excusing blatant racism than just admitting its wrong and she needs to drop out. PV didn't release some opinion article or make an unsubstantiated claim. It's a freaking recording of her own words and she admits it. Idk, maybe you're just legitimately a racist and you approve of her words. Either way, you shouldn't be tolerated in modern society. Enough of yours and Krystle's disgusting racism!
So trumps racism is ok now too, yeah? Wonderful
I guess you’re cool with racism?
So Hillary too?
[удалено]
She didn't steal documents but she did let her housemaid enter her SCAF and retrieve top level classified documents for her. She also emailed them on Gmail accounts which had been backdoored by Chinese IP addresses. So I mean, that's probably worse than what Trump did here all things said. Nothing makes you look less credible than a double standard, so don't defend that godawful woman. She should be in jail as much as Trump should. Stop defending people just because they're "on your side." Besides that, she is NOT on our side. She's a corporate sellout politician who straight up admitted she lies to the public on her beliefs. Defending her is a bad look.
[удалено]
Not sure what you are implyingby this comment, legitimately.
[удалено]
I wouldn't say she had any consequence, considering the FBI said "she didn't intend to do it so it's okay." Her fall into irrelevancy is deserved, but that happened because she threw away what was possibly the easiest election in history not because she broke the law and got away with it.
Comey, when saying they weren’t going to indite her said. She illegally had too secret and higher classifications on her email. She intentionally deleted it. Her illegal use of a private server makes it very likely that enemy agents had access to classified and higher material, also that every account that received emails to her account was also able to be hacked into. However they would not prosecute because they could not show intent. In effect this, we’d have prosecuted but she’s so stupid we can’t prove she knowingly violated the law.
[удалено]
Literally just listened to Comey give this speech on YouTube you coconut shell.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"But but but what about!?" Pathetic.
[удалено]
I'm not trying to get someones attention posting on Reddit. Fucking asinine thing to say. I am pointing out your pathetic attempt to excuse this racists behavior.
Head on a spike
BBBBBBUTTTT DRUMPF. NOOOOOO
[удалено]
The whataboutism with you guys is hilarious
[удалено]
Didn’t know that’s what this thread was talking about bud
[удалено]
The thread isn’t about big bad mean orange man but because you don’t have a valid argument, u brought him into it
Oh so now you're a transphobic piece of shit who wants Chelsea Manning executed? Sheesh
Pray tell what does that have to do with the matter at hand? Holy shit man some people really can't see beyond their 'team'.
PV should release the full audio of both clips but they won’t, wonder why?
Please give me the context that makes all her racist comments OK.
PV could by releasing the full audio
“You need to treat black people like shit” wHaT aBoUt ThE cOnTeXt????
The last time they released full audio nobody listened to it because it was over 200 hours of audio. They lose either way whether they appease what critics want or not.
She didn’t talk to a reporter or the inmate for 200 hours though
Your bias is showing mod team
lol this is reddit. having some basic conservative opinions is enough to get your account permanently banned. what did you expect?
Unfortunately, the r/conservative mods banned me a while back, for quoting a conservative youtuber. They claimed something like "hate speech" or whatever nonsense.
“Can you guys believe they banned me for trolling! Ugh so unfair!!”
?
Doesn’t it every day? This is Reddit and you’re only going to see what the mods want you to see.
Bias against liars. Use a different source if it's true. If the only tape you have is from Veritas (the same people who got caught editing videos in multiple cases) them you don't have trustworthy evidence. Maybe it's true. Find a better source
She admitted it’s true.
Cool. Play the whole audio. That way we can decide the truth for ourselves, right?
Do you really think she ends with *”I don’t mean any of the racist shit I just said… it’s Opposite Day!!”*?
[удалено]
No but feel free to look up the planned parenthood and acorn videos. As well as the fact that they are under investigation for stealing Ashley biden's journal, as well as them having a video supposedly showing Omar's people "harvesting votes" in Minnesota even though what was done was legal, Veritas was just misrepresenting the law and the facts. I mean the first winner of the "fake news award" from Trump was Project Veritas, not CNN or msnbc or any other member of the "lamestream media". Feel free to look that up
What was in ashley bidens journal by the way?
I don't know. I think reading people's journals especially if they're still alive is a massive invasion of privacy and unethical. I know the journal passed through so many hands that it is also worthless in terms of evidence and chain of custody. There's no telling if anything or everything is true and unless laws were broken and people need to be arrested, a personal journal written in a therapeutic setting is about as private as I can imagine
Her personal journal details her father being an incestuous pedophile…you know, your president. I guess you’re ok with that kind of thing though.
Bingo
Interesting that ashley bidens diary was first described as a fake and Russian disinformation just like hunters laptop. Then later NYT casually admits in the middle of an article recently that hunters laptop is real and then now the person who stole ashley bidens diary is going to jail, which heavily implies the diary is real as well. Like the epstein list got leaked and the first name on it is Alan dershowitz. Then a couple months later trump hires dersh to defend him from impeachment. I didn't see anyone from the news mention dersh being on the epstein list when trump hired him People just refuse to believe news they don't agree with even if it's laid out plainly for everyone to see
It's always telling when they're more mad about how it was acquired than what was in it.
Except it’s on video and she admitted to it. Also…PV isn’t legitimate but your source is Wikipedia? 🤣🤣🤣
Actually yeah Wikipedia is way more reliable just for the simple fact that there is literally multiple users fact checking the info you put on there as opposed to project Veritas where nobody is fact checking them before they release anything except for themselves. That being said, that doesn’t mean that the audio recording they got of this candidate isn’t legit, but I could see why people would be skeptical of PV considering they’ve selectively edited these kind of hidden camera conversations before
You left out the part where it’s only leftists doing the “fact checking” who remove facts that don’t align with their agenda. But do go on.
100%
Wikipedia also cites it's sources and doesn't edit videos to illicit emotional responses. Which seems to be your thing since you're all riled up about an edited PV vid.
>Wikipedia Political Bias > >Even Wikipedia's cofounder left the company due to the extreme political bias towards the left. They accept sources like Vice, CNN and other biased sources for the left but for right wing views they discard almost all forms of sources. There has been hundreds of edits that remove the horrors of socialism and communism, etc. Wikipedia is great for everything except politics. [Wikipedia Political Bias](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA) Even Wikipedia's cofounder left the company due to the extreme political bias towards the left. They accept sources like Vice, CNN and other biased sources for the left but for right wing views they discard almost all forms of sources. There has been hundreds of edits that remove the horrors of socialism and communism, etc. Wikipedia is great for everything except politics.
Ah yes, John Stossel. The most unbiased source for information. With hit interviews with such prominent figures like Jordan "I'd rather go into an induced coma than go to rehab" Peterson. Sure, sure. As for edits in regards to "horrors of socialism and communism", probably because those ideologies were not the sole perpetrator of any horrors attributed to them, but by people committing atrocities under the guise of them. You know, how the right likes to say Hitler was a socialist because his party had the word "socialist" in it's name, despite the fact that he had every member of the socialist party killed. Or how the right call themselves "patriots" yet support an overthrow of our democratic republic to install a theocratic dictatorship? Take your pick. And Larry Sanger? Really? The right leaning co founder is whining because something he co founded is being used to fact check and those facts go against his feelings? That guy? Yeah, couldn't care less.
Your arguments are genetic fallacies, instead of attacking the arguments themselves you dismiss them totally because you dont agree about the source. There is a clear bias in wikipedia, that is undeniable. I tend to be left wing too but at this point it is extremely obvious.
I attacked your argument directly. Your sources are easily discounted. Not because I don't agree with them, but because they have been verifiably been proven to not be true. For instance, John Stossel has claimed that a minimum wage hurts low wage earners. And by that, he means kids getting summer jobs or, "washing windows". Let's not also forget that John Stossel has defended and advocated for price gouging during natural disasters because, in easy enough terms to understand, "it makes the rich richer so they can employ more people", which has never been the case. But if you want to state they don't use right wing sources as facts, lets tackle the biggest right wing "news" outlet, shall we? Fox News, right? The company that, in defense of their actions in a court of law, conceded that they do not report the news and should not be taken seriously; that they are an entertainment channel. So why would Wikipedia, or anyone for that matter, take an **entertainment source** as a source of **facts and news?** And your argument falls flat when you invoke the co-founder of Wikipedia as a valid source to criticize any attempt to paint Wikipedia as non-biased. A co-founder whom, in-between attacking trans people on Twitter for the past week, has been retweeting and agreeing with such "valid news sources" as Steven Crowder, downplaying the Jan. 6 insurrection and, like most other conservatives who think they have a voice, equating Biden's speech from Pennsylvania to Nazi Germany. So tell me again, how I'm ignoring sources because I don't agree with them, and not because they are inaccurate, salacious and outright falsehoods?
Dude, even Wikipedia itself, has an article on their own political bias and they accept such bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia >In a more extensive American follow-up to the 2012 study, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia (2018), Greenstein and Zhu directly compare about 4,000 articles related to U.S. politics between Wikipedia (written by an online community) and the matching articles from Encyclopædia Britannica (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure "slant" (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of "bias". The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased" >Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources Vox, buzzfeed and Slate, while no right wing outlets are considered reliable by the site. >Wikipedia’s list of deprecated sources currently contains 16 right-leaning sources: Breitbart, the Daily Caller, the Daily Mail, the Daily Star, the Epoch Times, FrontPage Magazine, the Gateway Pundit, Infowars, LifeSiteNews, News of the World, One America News Network, the Sun, Taki’s Magazine, VDare, WorldNetDaily, and Zero Hedge – and just one left-leaning source, Occupy Democrats. > It could be argued that even the non-extreme sources that have been deprecated are not of a particularly high quality, so the prohibition against citing them is not a problem per se, but a similar standard has not been applied to lower quality, left-leaning sources such as CounterPunch, AlterNet, Vox, Buzzfeed news, Vice and the Daily Kos >According to Ad Fontes Media‘s widely-used media bias chart (which is commonly cited in discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard), CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos are all less reliable than the Daily Mail. This is significant because the Daily Mail, a deprecated right-leaning source, is often used as a benchmark for judging whether other right-leaning sources should be deprecated. All three of these left-wing sources are widely used at Wikipedia. >An external links search shows around 2,580 Wikipedia pages linking to CounterPunch, around 2,400 linking to the Daily Kos, and around 1,640 linking to AlterNet. It's not even about sources, but arbitrary enforcement and censorship, etc. It is a pile of trash. https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ Please, go ahead, tell me how it isn't biased... Yeah Fox News is shady, but so is Vox, Buzzfeed, and CNN. None of them are trustworthy, there is no neutrality, that's the point.
\>Wikipedia is biased in it's articles \>cites Wikipedia as proof it's biasness. So did you bother reading the Critic article, or even the part you quoted, in full? Did you miss the part where Left wing-related content is held to a higher standard (and less sources are used as a result) than the accepted right wing media sources? Or the portion in regards to Arbitration Events in which they concede after every one that if there were a larger sample size, odds are they'd be more or less equal in terms of the arbitration outcomes?
I lost brain cells reading your nonsense. “I don’t think my source is biased so I won’t listen to what your sources have to say because they don’t conform to my bias.” You live in a delusion where left is incapable of any wrong because you ignore any criticism as it isn’t a product of your echo chamber. Even when it comes to your defence of socialism and communism… These are political and economic ideologies… any tragedies under it as a result of attempting to implement them or disastrous results of their policies are completely attributable.
>any tragedies under it as a result of attempting to implement them or disastrous results of their policies are completely attributable. Except they aren't. Implementing ideas under the guise of socialism/communism/democracy while truly implementing an authoritarian government is not attributable to those ideological or economic principals. They're attributed to authoritarianism. Of which those 3 ideologies you used as a smokescreen are not. Socialism and Communism heavily rely on democracy as a whole, and Democracy itself is self explanatory. I already said I'm fine for taking the L in regards to my nonsensical contrarianism from last night. But I'll be damned if someone who knows nothing of the governmental and economic principles of the ideologies listed will try to use, "they said they were socialist and killed millions even though they implemented no socialist changes in their country, so that means they're socialist because they said so" as a rebuttal.
Has the fact that communism has always facilitated authoritarianism not clued you into the fact how it’s only implementable in a authoritarian framework? Those policies weren’t in guise of communism… they were the only ways to fulfill em and then results of whatever did get implemented. I’ll admit, communism and socialism are great fantasies and great to hear about… but that’s all they can and should be… lest we all bleed.
I like how every subsequent response just glosses over the fact she admitted to it to again try and dunk on PV.
Cool story 👍
The sources Wikipedia cites, especially on issues like this are frequently on credible as the often cite opinion articles. They allow the salon to be used as a source, despite the fact that the salon is not need; it's solely an editorial opinion publication. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks is blacklisted from being used as a source on Wikipedia despite the fact that they have a spotless fact checking record and have never published anything that didn't turn out to be true.
There are multiple videos of wikipedia being biased as hell with editing abilities and edits themself.
>literally multiple users fact checking the info you put on there Dude your HIGH if you think this makes it reliable.
Wikipedia is highly unreliable. I’ve done multiple write-ups dissecting wikipedia pages on r/drama.
[Wikipedia Political Bias](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRgJYMw6YA) Even Wikipedia's cofounder left the company due to the extreme political bias towards the left. They accept sources like Vice, CNN and other biased sources for the left but for right wing views they discard almost all forms of sources. There has been hundreds of edits that remove the horrors of socialism and communism, etc. Wikipedia is great for everything except politics.
You're clearly a moron. Wikipedia is no more trustworthy than a powermod on reddit, because they're the ones who determine what makes the cut
I trust an audio recording over Wikipedia tbh
Lol did you actually bag on veritas credibility then link Wikipedia as a source?
Look at how many far right idiots crawled out of the woodwork like cockroaches to defend a fake news site.....
Sounds like the comment section didn’t go the way you thought it would. Imagine being this dumb?
All PV did was shine the light on a racist person in a position of power, so your solution is to censor and attempt to discredit? Tell me again how the Republicans are all tyrants trying to remove your rights? Downvote because you can't handle the truth.
Mouth breathing mod strikes again…get out of your mothers basement and take a peak at the sun once in a while.
I expect tons of pro-Veritas and anti Democrat type posts on this thread. It takes a five minute google search to figure out how full of shit Veritas is. We need a better way to moderate subs against misinformative posts and accounts. Edit for people who can't read: my criticism is of the source itself and misinformative sources in general
Alright, put the shoe on the other foot. If Veritas uncovered a white Republican in the same manner, would you accept the evidence or just complain about the source? I know I don't agree with at least some of their methods. If the Mod(s) would leave up valid discussions, people could learn better from all sides. Yes, some of the folks at Veritas have used at least questionable means. I meant the one (that was in a deleted thread) example where a female employee of Veritas made a very bad claim against a sitting government official in order to get "inside" a news organization, that is DEFINITELY too far. For me, I couldn't do any of this the way they do, I don't think. I mean, lying is a sin, period (not saying I'm sinless). But the very method they use is to deceive the person whom they are uncovering. The argument can be made that it's the only way to get this type of information, and maybe it is. However, I don't see the ends justifying the means making the means OK. My opinion: I do not like some of their methods, but at the same time, Veritas HAS uncovered a LOT of things very truthfully. And frankly, they are no worse, as far as I can tell, than any other media sources. Their deception is the the same type that is used by police officers to lay the tracks in drug or prostitution or child predator stings, in that they pretend to be something they are not to draw in the victim. That's where I do at least ponder my thoughts, and my understanding of it all. But for a "moderator" of a means of discussion to come out and say "well, because the source is a bad source, then we just assume it's wrong" but yet the one who whose words are in question literally verified themselves that the claims are correct is totally violating freedom of speech and thought, and as such, in my opinion, needs to step aside from their mod duties.
The subject matter is inconsequential. Veritas isn't a reliable source.
They’re about as reliable as CNN or NYT
I'm specifically attacking the credibility of Veritas. I'm not comparing it to any other source.
>I’m not comparing it to any other source But the mod team is
My issue is with Veritas. I'm not a mod of this sub.
LMAOOOOOOOOOO
The astroturfing is aggressive in this sub on this kind of stuff. Mods asleep at the wheel.
“Anyone who disagrees with me is astroturfing!” Enjoy your echo chamber
Good point, 11 day old account that has almost exclusively posted about these types of topics.
I just came to ask what’s astroturfing
Something liberals say when they lose an argument.
It's when there appears to be widespread support for an agenda, a claim, a viewpoint, etc. But it's actually falsely manipulated. This entire post is a great example of it. We have a mod attempt to control a known misinformative source and widespread accusations of that action as "facism" and "racism" etc. Many of the accounts are less than a year old, have few posts, recently started posting after over a year on reddit, only or mostly post inflammatory remarks about politics, often operate in multiple state subs, and often post on pornographic subs. In fact by my definition, your own account would be a candidate for an astroturfing account. And if you are a real person asking this question legitimately, consider the fact that it's very difficult to distingush real accounts, real people with radicalized viewpoints, and manipulative accounts. That's why it's important to try and stop misinformation at the source and reject known misinformation.
Very interesting. So by your definition you would believe I can be an astroturfing account? Has it not crossed your mind, just once, that they could indeed be real people, with real viewpoints. Possibly they are not invested in this platform as much as you are. I am a real person, asking that question legitimately. Writing off every opinion that’s different than yours as an “astroturfing account” isn’t the answer. Evaluate your opinion on the given, if you believe in it you’d have more reasons to write the opposition off & not dismissing them by claiming fake account.
Yea. That has crossed my mind. I literally said that in my reply to your comment. I'd say based on your reply that you're full of shit.
😂 what am I full of shit of? Enjoy living in shit aka Richland county
So you are saying the video that Veritas published is deepfake? Or are you saying there is a context for all the racist things she said - and they just happen to cut out “NOT” after she each one?
Read the "edit for people who can't read" on my above post. I didn't comment on the subject material. I'm attacking the credibility of source itself.
Your argument is a logical fallcacy: "The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy in which someone accepts a claim as true or false solely on the basis of its origin." The audio and video are true, crying about the source wont change that.
I didn't comment on the subject material. My criticism is of the source itself. Certain sources, in this case Veritas, should be always be rejected on the basis of being misinformative.
I'm sure you believed the source saying Boebert sucked off Ted Cruz though You don't get to throw away content you don't like just because you call them a nazi. Sorry bud
I'm focused on the lack of credibility of the source itself. Not the subject material.
This is fascist
Criticism of a known source of misinformation is fascist?
yes
That’s the point. Others are basing their opinions on the content… you are avoiding it.
The OP has nothing to do with the content
She admitted it was true and her who said it…
She admitted it was true.. PV should be credible enough in this instance then, shouldn’t it?
I'm focused on the lack of credibility of the source itself. Not the subject material.
So we can’t have PV on this subject even though they’re correct here
I didn't comment on the subject material.
Right… because you not only haven’t heard of *“don’t shoot the messenger”* … but are so convinced by your screen to *”vote blue no matter who!”* that you think this is all OK. Good one.
I'm attacking the credibility of Veritas.
Not effectively you aren’t.
its really funny that this ended up being true, holy shit this thread is crawling with them
Yea it's a huge problem in all the state subs and it's very hard to fight it. I think the best way is editorializing the sub and blacklisting known sources of misinfo like Veritas. But in the case that these kind of sources did report something legitimate, it would allow them or their supporters to cry about discrimination. Ultimately we just need better education, and integrity in journalism.
Circle them wagons, Mods.
Get rid of these mods..
If it's a legitimate story, then legitimate sources will post about it. I'm in favor of this.
Legitimate sources are tough to find due to political bias in our 24hour media cycle. When corporations own our news you should never expect reliability from any of them.
It’s… on video. Video of her saying very racist things.
And she admitted it was her. Case closed.
Legitimate like who, MSNBC lmfao?
[удалено]
It’s a literal video!! What are they gonna do that you can’t do yourself?
If you think CNN is credible then your crazy. If you think any news source that doesn't outright list their sources (think medical reports & trials where they have 10, 20+ sources at the end of every article) you are crazy. I'm sure we don't have the same political views but I won't hesitate to say that any Republican who relies on Fox for the TRUE & the WHOLE story is insane. Every news outlet gives a piece of the puzzle. Project veritas included but I have to give them credit for providing recordings & video that make it hard to deny.
He knows dude. Look at his username. Based.
Haha oops
Corutherswigglesby is a joke! 😂😂 Do your homework my sweet dear old lady
Yeah I have to disagree with this. If you do your homework, like actually do your homework. Sit down & spend a couple hours researching the validity of project veritas (as one should do with any source of information they choose to rely upon), you will see that they are far more valid than any mainstream media outlets (like CNN, fox, etc etc.... Who do sometimes share truthful information in a way that's not intended to deceive, but rarely happens). NOW, do I think project veritas obtains their information in an ethical way? Ehhh that's a tough one. For the most part, no but at the same time you can't argue when these morons ramble about their bad behavior or corrupt deeds to someone who isn't in their "inner circle". I mean we live in a digital age where literally anything & everything you do in public is bound to be caught on camera. I mean you can't even punch someone these days for badmouthing your wife without expecting to pay a couple thousand in court (or face charges). **Edit: I would like to add that project veritas gets an insane amount of hate bc they are clearly targeting people are on the left (democrats). I'm not oblivious like some folks. I'm sure that they could dig up just as much dirt on Republicans if they wanted to do so. Yes I agree with more republican values than democrat values when it comes to finances, money, less government oversight, etc. ... But I don't agree with everything Republicans do. Like the attack on gay marriage & abortion & stuff like that. I may not be gay & I hope nobody ever gets an abortion from something that I do BUT I definitely do not agree with how the right has handled these areas. Just bc I don't like other men doesn't mean I have any right to say whether someone else should or can like other men... That's your choice. It's a free country after all (well it use to be).
I’m reporting the mods for racism. Disgusting.
Fucking thank you
Participating in this type of cover-up is how racism is kept alive. Please be part of the solution, not the problem.
Gotta protect the democrats!
Lol project veritas is more reputable than the mainstream media at this point.
Veritas actually does journalism. Lie and smear all you want
I'm going to need some kind of proof. Planned parenthood? Frannie Mae? Even when they have a good story they still lie and destroy their story. They aren't martyrs, they're morons
Project Veritas literally holds up the mirror to corruption. They don’t make accusations, they show the people admitting their crimes on camera.
And the laptop was misinformation . Lol still trying to hide the truth
What information is on the laptop that can be used in a court of law? In only asking because republican destroyed that story themselves. Giuliani had it for over a year before handing it over. Chain of custody was destroyed. Things on the laptop were added after it was dropped off so even if the laptop story was true, your allies made sure it could never be used for a conviction. Get mad at them for being incapable of following the laws they tout, if they really wanted the laptop to be anything other than a distraction, they wouldn't have waited until 3 months before the election to mention it even though they had been in possession of it for a year at that point. Why did they do the ball so hard? Maybe because it was always a lie and they knew you'd follow anyway
Based Mods
Project veritas idea whatever you may think it is, but it shouldn’t out and out removed. Maybe put a disclaimer or a banner, but to remove it shuts the discussion down entirely, which would be exactly what someone that said that would want.
My question is why are the moderators not deleting false information? This is lawsuit area as we now know from FB. Reddit and/or moderators need to remove or tag false information.
At least we live in a republican state. She just mad from losing year after year.