Project Veritas

[_EAllusion]

So far, Ajax, you haven’t provided a single reason as to why anyone interested in the truth should trust the ironically named Project Veritas. Your weak “whataboutism” is less than convincing.

See the original link in the opening post

res ipsa video

Project Veritas routinely misleads its audience up to and including presenting deceptively edited video clips meant to imply things occurred that did not. So, why should anyone trust a link to a Project Veritas video? Saying, "See this link to a Project Veritas video clip" as a response to that begs the question.

[_Res Ipsa]

So far, Ajax, you haven’t provided a single reason as to why anyone interested in the truth should trust the ironically named Project Veritas. Your weak “whataboutism” is less than convincing.

See the original link in the opening post

res ipsa video

The video doesn't provide any evidence that the video is trustworthy. PV has a documented history of making and editing videos that misrepresent what actually occurred. They also present outlier situations as if they are representative. Given that history, why would anyone interested in the actual truth even watch a PV video?

[_Res Ipsa]

Project Veritas routinely misleads its audience up to and including presenting deceptively edited video clips meant to imply things occurred that did not. So, why should anyone trust a link to a Project Veritas video? Saying, "See this link to a Project Veritas video clip" as a response to that begs the question.

Yeah, the Book of Mormon tells us the truth. Look, it says so right there...

[_subgenius]

Now who could ever make such a claim, given the size of the USA?

A more appropriate question, before devoting large resources of time and money to investigating this alleged issue might be to ask what solid evidence there is that non-citizen voting is a significant problem in the US at the present time. So far I have not seen any references to such evidence on this board.

(No, stuff about 'I met this one guy and he was totally a poll worker and he said ... ' is not what I meant by 'solid evidence'.

"Significant problem"? what kind of stupid limey goalpost is that?...who among us gets to define "significant"?
I like your logic, maybe use it for a murder defense in an area where murder really isn't a significant problem....geez

Oh, solid evidence...what if the poll worker in question was Dr Ford? would it not be enough for this poll worker to state "indelible in the hippocampus" ?

But what about this evidence inasmuch as guys like yourself have such rigorous measures for what must be considered as evidence....

So as we see legislation in California like Local Measure N and the motor voter registration as being pretty darn close to empirical evidence that illegal immigrants are voting in some elections....and its way better evidence than you currently got against Trump on just about any campaign finance violation.

But i know you are skeptical and you support the DNC effort to rig elections, so what about this evidence?
https://truethevote.org/voter-crimes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.



Love how you guys don't believe in voter fraud until its convenient, like in NC-09....adds a lot of integrity to your posture (jus sayin).

Yeah, it would only be significant if they were voting Republican.

[_canpakes]

... so what about this evidence?
https://truethevote.org/voter-crimes

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

The paper you reference has been reviewed by several other academic organizations. Here’s one conclusion that speaks for several, presented here for succinctness:

This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman, Chattha, and Earnest (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.

https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/news/peril ... in-content

As usual, your source is pretty useless, except to prove that you rely on crappy sources.

[_ajax18]

Project Veritas routinely misleads its audience up to and including presenting deceptively edited video clips meant to imply things occurred that did not. So, why should anyone trust a link to a Project Veritas video? Saying, "See this link to a Project Veritas video clip" as a response to that begs the question.

Where was the editing deceptively done in this video? It seemed pretty straight forward to me.

Does it matter that he's not a citizen?

No, we have tons of noncitizens voting.

[_Res Ipsa]

Project Veritas routinely misleads its audience up to and including presenting deceptively edited video clips meant to imply things occurred that did not. So, why should anyone trust a link to a Project Veritas video? Saying, "See this link to a Project Veritas video clip" as a response to that begs the question.

Where was the editing deceptively done in this video? It seemed pretty straight forward to me.

Does it matter that he's not a citizen?

No, we have tons of noncitizens voting.

Have they released all the video they shot? The deceptive editing is never apparent unless you can watch all the footage.

[_EAllusion]

Project Veritas routinely misleads its audience up to and including presenting deceptively edited video clips meant to imply things occurred that did not. So, why should anyone trust a link to a Project Veritas video? Saying, "See this link to a Project Veritas video clip" as a response to that begs the question.

Where was the editing deceptively done in this video? It seemed pretty straight forward to me.

All of their videos seem "straightforward" until you find out about how the deception was done. That's how deceptive editing works. I happen to agree that this video seems as is because what it mostly shows is a Veritas plant trying to manipulate a woman clearly trying to do the right thing into saying stuff to trigger their audience into thinking something that isn't true. You'd think they'd edit that down if they were trying to make themselves look good. But their MO is relentless lying, so ya never know.

Does it matter that he's not a citizen?

He doesn't exist. But yes, ineligible voters should not vote. Do you actually vote? Do you understand what poll workers do? The person they are interviewing doesn't have a job that requires her to understand eligibility criteria for voting. That's why she is being picked on. Her job is to make sure those voting are registered to do so. She spends the entire video trying to figure out if he's registered and listing ID's he needs to have to register/vote. When problems with the fictional person's ability to vote enter the conversation, her first instinct is maybe he's lying about being registered. She seems to trust the registration process.

No, we have tons of noncitizens voting.

No we don't. The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts this. And a random poll worker being manipulated into saying otherwise isn't compelling evidence to the contrary. One hint you should have been able to pick up on is that prosecutors in Texas are hungry for voter fraud cases, and they aren't likely missing "tons of them" easily uncovered by asking random poll workers.

[_Kevin Graham]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this woman being interviewed is also a plant. Googling "deborah brooks-wims" pulls up nothing but a litany of right wing conspiracy blogs about this subject.

[Guest]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this woman being interviewed is also a plant. Googling "deborah brooks-wims" pulls up nothing but a litany of right wing conspiracy blogs about this subject.

I don’t know, Kevin. Everyone knows that the only folks allowed to be poll workers are ultra-liberal Democrats who believe in completely tearing down our borders and allowing anyone to vote regardless of the legal requirements, then openly bragging about it to partisan right-wing hacks while being recorded on video.