You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

19
-18

[–] 9658005? 19 points -18 points (+1|-19) ago  (edited ago)

O'Keefe is a serial lier who has been legally sanctioned for his misrepresentations. He's hardly credible and it's concerning that what should be our most trusted person, the president, is citing him via spokespeople.

EDIT: she even admits it might not be true. She just wants to push propaganda in hopes of discrediting their political media opponents. This is authoritarian and unacceptable.

0
10

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

lol. did you watch the video?

and stop thread sliding with nonsense sharia blue faggot. CNN has been caught hard with their muh russia conspiracy hoax...

CNN is pathetic and is imploding from it's own bullshit deal with it

10
-10

[–] 9658429? 10 points -10 points (+0|-10) ago 

She says she wants people to watch it, whether or not it's true. What part of that did you not get. This is the president and they can't be so bothered as to find facts or truth to back them up? They rely on criminally untruthful media outlets.

You can claim that everyone who disagrees with you is being paid by some large Jewish conspiracy but that doesn't change the fact that our democracy is moving towards an authoritarian plutocracy.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

8
-8

[–] 9658626? 8 points -8 points (+0|-8) ago 

This is a news guy talking about business. It's the same shit Fox does. What point does this prove that the white house is using a known slanderer for proof while saying that the evidence might or might not be true. Those quotes in no way discredit that the white house is citing this while acknowledging it might not be true.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

6
-6

[–] 9658596? 6 points -6 points (+0|-6) ago 

I'm not sure you looked, but I've been a liberal here since I created the account. Of course, it's hard to say anything without "muh shareblew" bullshit being thrown at me. Is your ideology so weak that it can't face unpaid opposition without being disproven? Is your leaders leadership so weak that he needs an army of devout deniers to protect it.

0
3

[–] Rainy-Day-Dream 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

there's two sides to this, only one is presenting evidence for their claims (video evidence at that). Who do you think any reasonable person will side with?

1
-1

[–] 9661489? 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

The side "presenting evidence" is being doubted by the people citing his evidence. I think the people can smell that bullshit from a mile away. The guy with "evidence" is known to selectively edit videos and has been sued successfully for doing so. He was found to edit videos in a criminal manner. He is not reasonably credible.