Protest Groups Plan to Shut Down Inauguration, Paralyze DC

[jamil]

My head hurts.....

For those who have stopped paying attention for, Idunno, maybe lack of interest, I'll unpack that.

Kut implied early in the thread that this thread is a sham, because conservative groups were actually paying to get these liberal groups to disrupt the election. I asked for links. Thread goes on, I eventually ask for links again. Kut posted a link to an article based on the original reporting from Ryan Grim from HuffPo. The article Kut linked claimed Veritas tried to pay liberal groups to riot. As stated it implies they're fishing for anyone who they can get on tape to say they'll do it. Kut believes them. I guess because he thinks they are credible.

So, I listened to the audio Kut's link claimed was proof. What I heard on the audio sounded like two sides both trying to get the other to admit to something illegal. I called it sting/counter-sting. Neither were fishing.

So then Veritas came out with their most recent sting video, which Kut didn't watch because he's declared that they are not credible, based on the side he wants to believe. Then Veritas released another video addressing the accusations of Grim. In the video, O'Keefe says Grim, who broke the story on HuffPo, endorsed his sting video. Kut wouldn't watch that video.

So then, I searched for what O'Keefe referenced to see what he was talking about. On the Veritas website is a short article summarizing a radio interview by Sean Hanity, of both Ryan Grim and O'Keefe together. Now, I would not trust Sean Hanity as a source. He's clearly biased. And given that O'Keefe's credibility is in question, I'm not going to rely on his testimony. But the source I'm relying on is Ryan Grim, the author of the piece that started the whole thing.

Grim did indeed endorse O'Keefe's reporting. Grim, among other things also admitted that at most his piece exposed the thing that I said, that both sides were trying to get the other side to admit to something illegal. In other words, it wasn't a fishing sort of hit-piece exposition that Kut's article implied.

So, Idunno. Maybe Kut can find a link from his credible sources that say Sean Hanity actually interviewed someone posing as Grim, just to get Veritas off the hook.

But Kut still says none of it is credible. Even the guy who broke the story, which the link he provided is based on, is apparently not credible.

 

[BugI02]

Nah, I'm good. Anything that comes from people that purposely try to get people to do illegal acts doesn't have any credibility to me.

View attachment 52534

 

[Dr.Midnight]

For those who have stopped paying attention for, Idunno, maybe lack of interest, I'll unpack that.

Kut implied early in the thread that this thread is a sham, because conservative groups were actually paying to get these liberal groups to disrupt the election. I asked for links. Thread goes on, I eventually ask for links again. Kut posted a link to an article based on the original reporting from Ryan Grim from HuffPo. The article Kut linked claimed Veritas tried to pay liberal groups to riot. As stated it implies they're fishing for anyone who they can get on tape to say they'll do it. Kut believes them. I guess because he thinks they are credible.

So, I listened to the audio Kut's link claimed was proof. What I heard on the audio sounded like two sides both trying to get the other to admit to something illegal. I called it sting/counter-sting. Neither were fishing.

So then Veritas came out with their most recent sting video, which Kut didn't watch because he's declared that they are not credible, based on the side he wants to believe. Then Veritas released another video addressing the accusations of Grim. In the video, O'Keefe says Grim, who broke the story on HuffPo, endorsed his sting video. Kut wouldn't watch that video.

So then, I searched for what O'Keefe referenced to see what he was talking about. On the Veritas website is a short article summarizing a radio interview by Sean Hanity, of both Ryan Grim and O'Keefe together. Now, I would not trust Sean Hanity as a source. He's clearly biased. And given that O'Keefe's credibility is in question, I'm not going to rely on his testimony. But the source I'm relying on is Ryan Grim, the author of the piece that started the whole thing.

Grim did indeed endorse O'Keefe's reporting. Grim, among other things also admitted that at most his piece exposed the thing that I said, that both sides were trying to get the other side to admit to something illegal. In other words, it wasn't a fishing sort of hit-piece exposition that Kut's article implied.

So, Idunno. Maybe Kut can find a link from his credible sources that say Sean Hanity actually interviewed someone posing as Grim, just to get Veritas off the hook.

But Kut still says none of it is credible. Even the guy who broke the story, which the link he provided is based on, is apparently not credible.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't see much happening, there's way too much big money in dc and the town is screwed down pretty tight.

 

[KG1]

For those who have stopped paying attention for, Idunno, maybe lack of interest, I'll unpack that.

Kut implied early in the thread that this thread is a sham, because conservative groups were actually paying to get these liberal groups to disrupt the election. I asked for links. Thread goes on, I eventually ask for links again. Kut posted a link to an article based on the original reporting from Ryan Grim from HuffPo. The article Kut linked claimed Veritas tried to pay liberal groups to riot. As stated it implies they're fishing for anyone who they can get on tape to say they'll do it. Kut believes them. I guess because he thinks they are credible.

So, I listened to the audio Kut's link claimed was proof. What I heard on the audio sounded like two sides both trying to get the other to admit to something illegal. I called it sting/counter-sting. Neither were fishing.

So then Veritas came out with their most recent sting video, which Kut didn't watch because he's declared that they are not credible, based on the side he wants to believe. Then Veritas released another video addressing the accusations of Grim. In the video, O'Keefe says Grim, who broke the story on HuffPo, endorsed his sting video. Kut wouldn't watch that video.

So then, I searched for what O'Keefe referenced to see what he was talking about. On the Veritas website is a short article summarizing a radio interview by Sean Hanity, of both Ryan Grim and O'Keefe together. Now, I would not trust Sean Hanity as a source. He's clearly biased. And given that O'Keefe's credibility is in question, I'm not going to rely on his testimony. But the source I'm relying on is Ryan Grim, the author of the piece that started the whole thing.

Grim did indeed endorse O'Keefe's reporting. Grim, among other things also admitted that at most his piece exposed the thing that I said, that both sides were trying to get the other side to admit to something illegal. In other words, it wasn't a fishing sort of hit-piece exposition that Kut's article implied.

So, Idunno. Maybe Kut can find a link from his credible sources that say Sean Hanity actually interviewed someone posing as Grim, just to get Veritas off the hook.

But Kut still says none of it is credible. Even the guy who broke the story, which the link he provided is based on, is apparently not credible.

Objectivity is a ***** sometimes. I say we blame Hanity for the whole thing and call it a day.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Fox showing video of a protest that popped up outside "Deploraball". Hah. Love the name

 

[two70]

Key words "reputable source."

It's kind of hard for anyone to supply you with a "reputable source" when reputability seems to be determined by whether or not you agree with the conclusion of the source...... but at least you are consistent.

 

[printcraft]

It's kind of hard for anyone to supply you with a "reputable source" when reputability seems to be determined by whether or not you agree with the conclusion of the source...... but at least you are consistent.

He would accept CNN or buzzfeed as sources.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

OK...I'm back in.

 

[Expat]

Fox showing video of a protest that popped up outside "Deploraball". Hah. Love the name

Did you see the kid that looked about 10, bragging about helping to start fires? His parents have to be so proud. Liberal trash.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;X4dgTW3Q_K8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dgTW3Q_K8[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's kind of hard for anyone to supply you with a "reputable source" when reputability seems to be determined by whether or not you agree with the conclusion of the source...... but at least you are consistent.

Kut (won't)

 

[printcraft]

[video=youtube;X4dgTW3Q_K8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dgTW3Q_K8[/video]

Good lord that "leader" was a rambling dumbass.... much like her outgoing president.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

[video=youtube;X4dgTW3Q_K8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dgTW3Q_K8[/video]

So they're going to resist when the government comes after their rights? Wonder how they feel about the cake bakers?

 

[jamil]

So they're going to resist when the government comes after their rights? Wonder how they feel about the cake bakers?

It's okay to be intolerant of people they think are intolerant. It's in the manifesto. Seems kinda circular though.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's okay to be intolerant of people they think are intolerant. It's in the manifesto. Seems kinda circular though.

I know. I've just never seen the gushing forth of unbridled hypocrisy before. It's almost overwhelming in blindness of those putting it on display.

I know we're all hypocrites, to one extent or the other. And the left and certain folks on INGO are quite versed on pointing it out for those on the right...but it's like the left (and to many critics of those on the right) are incapable of seeing it--or at least commenting on it.

 

[jamil]

I know. I've just never seen the gushing forth of unbridled hypocrisy before. It's almost overwhelming in blindness of those putting it on display.

I know we're all hypocrites, to one extent or the other. And the left and certain folks on INGO are quite versed on pointing it out for those on the right...but it's like the left (and to many critics of those on the right) are incapable of seeing it--or at least commenting on it.

This whole thing is really kind of astonishing. The rolls seem exactly reversed. And we're seeing how both sides handle the other side gaining power. Progressives didn't handle it too well then. They were in our faces. Calling us racists because we don't agree with their president. Emboldened against conservatives. Snarky. Even bitter. Conservatives lashed out against Obama, sure. But not in the violent way liberals are. As I said before we had some ruffled feathers on our side. But anyone who says conservatives behaved then like progressives are now, is simply not willing to see what's in front of their eyes.

The middle is bigger than the right or left. And they're seeing all this. I'd like to hear what they think about it. I would hope they're appropriately appalled by it.

 

[bwframe]

Not unlike Obama, right up until his last comments, making reference to his opposition as folks who treat folks that don't look like them differerently.

Awful glad that devisiveness will be leaving us. Wonder how many years it will take us to get back to where we were on race relations before Obama?

 

[churchmouse]

Not unlike Obama, right up until his last comments, making reference to his opposition as folks who treat folks that don't look like them differerently.

Awful glad that devisiveness will be leaving us. Wonder how many years it will take us to get back to where we were on race relations before Obama?

We 1st have to put out the fires he started.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So far, I'm not seeing anything being shut down or paralyzed... Maybe the ones saying they were going to do this have the same level of commitment as the Hollywood elites that promised to leave the country. Or maybe they just don't like cloudy weather. Or something...