วีดีโอ

lol, you do realize that a low ratio just tells me that the video is hitting my target audience, right? I'm not looking for an echo chamber lol...

Not particularly worried about it considering YT is pretty much only serving my videos to AJW's fan base at this point

I guess you don't know what plagiarism is? Lol... not to mention that was the smallest issue lol...

@@MrLukium your false plagiarism claim makes up the majority of both your video and your arguments. What exactly did I get wrong? AJW quotes what the New York DA puts out. The New York Post also quoted what the New York DA put out. AJW doesn't have to sight the New York Post as a source if AJW got his information straight from the DA report. This just makes you look sad and pathetic.

A. Thanks for proving you don't know what plagiarism is... it has exactly 0 to do with whether or not the NY Post cites the DA's office... the only thing sad and pathetic here is your poor attempt at defending AJW's dishonesty. B. There's absolutely an issue with the timing of the article and when AJW used it since the text from the article gives a beginning period "since taking office" but no ending period, so the fact that the article is from November 2022 it means that the stats only covered a partial year, and AJW using it mid 2024 makes it falsely appear as though the stats cover multiple years, especially if you go by AJW's unequivocally false claim that Bragg took office in 2021 (he took office in 2022). C. Go look at the DA's office data. I can't find anything that reflects the NY Post claim. In fact, the data seems to show the opposite. If that's the case, AJW chose to use false data to support a false claim, and that seems to be the case... But none of this matters because as long as people tell you what you want to hear, you'll suck up and defend them until the end of times...

@MrLukium dude, you falsely accused a man of committing a crime! At this point, I don't care what you say. You are in the wrong on this, and nothing you say at this point will change my mind. I would feel the same thing if you were targeting someone I didn't like! You also fail to see why people would like AJW. it's because he comes with receipts, while you only come with a grudge. Seriously, do better. This is sad.

What's false about the plagiarism claim? Presenting a copy and paste without an immediate citation = plagiarism. End of story, no argument to be had... stop defending something so blatantly wrong. Yeah, that's the issue. He comes with receipts, but they're false receipts. The data from the DA's office doesn't match his quote, and it's his fault for quoting a tabloid instead of the actual DA's office... The only thing here that's sad is your desperate attempt to defend AJW in this situation. He definitely plagiarized the NY Post, and he did so with the outcome of peddling misinformation since the NY Post article doesn't appear to match reality...

Hmmm... I see... what did I say that was not true? Copium much?

@@MrLukium is that what you call it? Cope? Lol. Alvin Bragg is as corrupt as they come, so is Leticia James and the rest of the New York justice system. You call it faulty statistics, lol. Let me explain something to you, you are a clown. That's not just my view, that's everybody's view. Your comment section… Who knows how many people you actually deleted, but we see what you are all about. Who knows if your accent is even real. You sound Russian, and to me that's the biggest irony of all of this. Trump was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, but here you are with a Russian accent colluding with the Democratic Party. How fucking priceless is that? You're a clown.

@@MrLukium what a shame, did you delete my response to this? Looks like you did.

A. I delete 0 comments B. I already said in the main video that I'm a first-generation immigrant, and in the comment section that I lived in Brazil until 15 but have lived in the US for over 20 years. C. I'm not in the least surprised that some racist piece of garbage who attacks people based solely on assumptions from their accent would also be unable to provide a legitimate argument against what I said in the video... you're the only one here looking like a 🤡... I have no issues with most of the people in the comment section disagreeing with me, because it means my video is hitting my target audience. I'm not on TH-cam looking for an echo chamber that'll just agree with everything I say... If you have something intelligent to say that contradicts any of the points I made, by all means, I'm all ears. Otherwise, if you're just going to be racist pile of ****, I suggest you move on because it's unlikely you can handle it...

Do you even know what plagiarism is lol?... I don't even think you understand what the plagiarism issue is by your comment...

@MrLukium it's clear that it's that you don't know what plagiarism is. Seriously buddy, the fact that my comment as a random nobody has almost as likes as your video in half the time should tell you how full of sh*t you are.

Or it could mean that my video is actually hitting my intended audience (AJW fanboys who will defend him even when he's blatantly peddling false information), and that I'm not in YT just looking for an echo chamber that agrees with what I have to say... but I don't blame you for being unable to think of that... after all, here you are defending AJW's grift

Don't take this guy seriously. AJW actually sourced all his references in the description of the video, which Lukium himself admits himself ever so briefly at around 1:37 before he continues to lie about him not citing his sources and how he plagiarized...by citing his source in the description. All the while he does worse by linking a separate website with his sources and NOT citing AJW's video. Dudes dishonest and arguing in bad faith.

wow... just amazing that people don't understand the bare minimum about plagiarism... There are two things as it relates to sourcing: 1. A citation, that's the thing you do within the body of the medium, so for example if you quote someone, you put a citation next to it. 2. A Bibliography, which is separate from the body and includes detailed information about all your sources. Let's take my video for example: I use two forms different sections for the "Bibliography," the description and the pastebin document. If you go to the main video, of which this is a segment of, it includes the link to the HippyDippy video as well as the link for AJW's follow up video, then the pastebin itself contains a full source for every document I used throughout my video. Again, this is the BIBLIOGRAPHY Then during the video itself, even though I have sources in the Bibliography, I still CITE every single source used, either verbally or in writing. HAD I NOT CITED THEM, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PLAGIARISM, EVEN IF THEY WERE IN THE BIBIOGRAPHY... and again, this wasn't even my main point in this video... it's just incredible that you all want to argue over this and yet don't even understand the basic concept of how to cite a source... no wonder you're all defending this guy...

Lol... you realize this is my first video on politics, right? The Letitia James and Alvin Bragg videos are segments from the main video... However, I will say this, judging by the inability of AJW fanboys to acknowledge how he cons them even when it's absolutely obvious... dude has 2 college degrees in criminal justice so he definitely knows better to use data from them source (DA's office) rather than some tabloid... especially when the data happens to say the opposite of what he's claiming... not to mention getting the year the guy got in office when he's had time to look into it lol... and then not addressing either in his follow-up "correction" video... anyway, considering the copium in this space, I think it's gonna be much more entertaining for me to focus on the right

@@MrLukium right, it's everyone else that's on copium. 🤣

@@MrLukium should be fun to watch you make more videos. But a little advice, the entire end of your video is poisoning the well. I can see how a biased person would equate Trump's civil issues with criminal issues and say that is a good explanation for why Bragg is upgrading misdemeanors. But if we are to respect the legal system, then the first principle is innocent until proven guilty. Just because you don't like them, doesn't make it acceptable to upgrade charges. AJW has never been a good source, but if you are trying to prove him wrong, you need to stay objective. It is obvious from this video you are not.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here... I never gave a reason in the video for the upgrading of the charges. I only gave a reason why, even if it was true that Bragg has a tendency to downgrade charges more than his predecessor (the data does not appear to bear that), that given Trump's litigation History in NY as well as the facts of the case makes him a massive outlier in comparison to your average felony, making any attempt to compare it to the average trend inherently dishonest as an argument.

@@MrLukium I would agree it is dishonest for him to use that as an argument. But your reasons why it is different aren't any better. While Trump's case is different, your reasons for why it is different are irrelevant. I'm not saying AJWs argument is good, but if you are going to debunk or counter the argument, your argument needs to be strong, not just as flawed as his. If you had just stated it as an opinion that you don't see the relevance, you are not making an argument so it is somewhat valid as an opinion. But if you are going to make a fact claim, you need to back it up, not simply make a fallacious argument (even if it is not as bad as your opponent, it isn't good and should be evaluated independent of your opponents claim).

Oh yea... nice deflection.... this video was totally not about AJW and his slimy misuse of bad stats and totally about defending Braggs general record as a prosecutor... Oh! Sorry! I got that backwards.

Can you give me the source of that quote?

Lmao... when I play a video where he, AJW, is in the video speaking, in a video where his name is in the thumbnail along with his picture, while also indicating he's in the upcoming video BEFORE playing it, it is impossible for someone not to know who's speaking... your attempt at comparing the 2 is sad... also, you just clearly don't understand what plagiarism is... that you have to go this far to defend AJW is a good display of your inability to hold people accountable when they tell you what you want to hear...

@@MrLukium How have I failed to understand plagiarism when the definition of "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own" does not reflect what AJW did? For example, I did not cite where I got this definition from but it is clear that I am not claiming it as my own as I am separating it from my own thought through the use of quotations, just like how AJW separated the paragraph from his video by putting it up in a box. I'm not plagiarizing the definition by not citing because i separated my work form the work of others, AJW did not plagiarize in his video by not citing because he did the equivalent in video format, and neither did you when you didn't cite his video as by putting the actual video you are referencing in yours you are clearly showing the video referenced is not your own work. The two can be compared because it doesn't matter if he is in the thumbnail and title because for you to properly cite something you need to provide the video title that you are referencing from so one can find the video in question easily and without question. I would think you would know this given the premise of the video and how you sorted several things just not the main video you were talking about. The only thing you provided was the author and subject (AJW and that it has to do with Alvin Bragg). It's the equivalent of me saying that there was no need for me to cite a paper I was using as a reference because my own paper was titled Dr. X makes new discovery about sharks. Not providing the articles name or year so finding the specific paper would be hard considering Dr. X writes about sharks a lot, much like how AJW has made multiple videos about Alvin Bragg. I can't even go into AJW having claimed his source earlier in the video as being from the DA as other comment have stated because I can't find the video in his channel and you didn't source it so I can't verify. Just like you claim AJW did. So yes, your video and his can be compared. Also, I see no problem defending AJW when as I don't think he has done he needs to be held all that accountable for. I do not agree with the point you made in the video so they did not convince me and as I have found flaws/hypocrisy in your points I am pointing them out given that you decided to "attack" AJW unsuccessfully. I understand that the best practice is to cite everything you reference but You-tubers rarely do this so its not much of a standard to hold them up to and AJW clearly wasn't passing off other work as his own so he does the same as others in the field. If you want to hold him to the standard of citing everything he references then I am all for it but you shouldn't have over-dramatized what he did as plagiarize but rather he just failed to cite because at the moment it makes you look dishonest even though, giving you the benefit of doubt, you weren't trying to be. Also you should have cited his video yourself to avoid looking like a hypocrite.

Don't take my word for it, ask any teaching faculty... just putting quotes around something does not mean you didn't plagiarize. There are one two specific ways to use someone else's work without having done plagiarism: 1. If you paraphrase, you don't use quotations but are still CITE THE SOURCE at the time that the text is used. 2. If you quote someone, that is, use their words, word for word, then you have to use quotations, AND CITE THE SOURCE. No citation along with a reference to someone else's work, whether you use quotations or not = Plagiarism. End of story, no argument to be had here... So yes, you have also plagiarized by only using quotations without also providing a citation for your source... so, thanks again for proving that up until now you had no idea what plagiarism is, and you're welcome for the lesson... Again, I verbally cited the source before introducing the video, not to mention that the video of AJW speaking the words coming out of his own mouth would have been sufficient attribution. Let me try to help you here. Had I not literally introduced the video by say that "After failing to make his case over Letitia James, AJW returns to Alvin Bragg, arguing that Bragg downgraded felonies at an unprecedented rate," AND only used the audio for the video, then that would have been plagiarism. However, I did cite the source along with the usage, AND I didn't just use the audio, so you can clearly see the words coming out of the original speaker's own mouth. Therefore, proper attribution was provided. You're confusing a bibliography and a citation, which by the way, I do mention in the introduction for the video that this is a segment of a larger video, and if you'd like all the information, you can see it there. And in that larger video, I do introduce all the videos as well. At best, you could possibly try, albeit unlikely to be successful I think, to claim that I didn't use proper citation formatting, but I most certainly attributed the source, necessarily making it not plagiarism... Again... the plagiarism part was hardly the biggest point I was making, as I make it clear in the video... that is just the beginning... the fact that he chose to use an old article without clearly stating so to avoid a misrepresentation based on the wording as well as the fact that the source itself (NY Post) seems to claim the opposite of reality, when the DA's office data is freely available for anyone to use (he lives in NY and covers crime for a living so he ought to know how to use the DA's office data), is the real problem and biggest source of dishonesty... the plagiarism is just the icing in the cake

lukium like a typical idiot just played himself

@@MrLukium I have several coworkers who write scientific papers, reports, etc. and recently in one paper one of my coworkers forgot to put the source for a quote she used. Instead of being accused of plagiarisms and banned from the university, she was just told to cite it next time. As i said, best practice and what should be done is citing everything but if you don't but still make sure that it is known that it's not your work then it's not plagiarism. Just because it's a segment of a larger video doesn't mean you don't need to cite AJW's video as its still being covered in the segment. You have a paste-bin with citations so why didn't you just add AJW's video. Furthermore, other comments claim that AJW did the same thing as you claim you did by verbally providing his source. I cannot verify as I don't know which video this is from and there is no source provided in your segment. So if the other commenters are correct int hat he did cite his source then this whole argument is null and you were just being dishonest in ignoring the section of the video and not providing the source to the video. You even updated a source in your comments for clarity and yet did not provide any sources to AJW's videos. All you said was that he made multiple videos after the debate. What videos? Maybe source them so we can verify what you claim is true and that you aren't misconstruing anything. Anyway I decided to look for the video and managed to find it th-cam.com/video/KVeFtkCdIGo/w-d-xo.html and guess what was in his description, the source you claimed he didn't provide Bragg Downgrading Felonies: nypost.com/2022/11/26/convict... along with all the other things he references in his video. Turns out that yes you are in fact a liar. He DID cite his claims and YOU left that out of your video except that you also claimed it in your video that he did cite it in the description, which I missed since I watch all my videos at 2x speed and you quickly brushed past it, so what's the issue. You claim he didn't cite his source while then admitting he did cite it but still continue to claim he is plagiarizing contentiously throughput the video even though he CITED HIS SOURCE. You are just lying to cast doubt on AJW. He did better than you did as you, again, have not cited AJW's video anywhere. Who's the real liar here? It's YOU.

It seems like you fundamentally misunderstand the Bragg case... Trump's crime was upgraded to a felony because it was committed to cover-up another crime. Which crime? All the crimes that Cohen committed when he paid off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. This includes Tax Fraud as well as Federal/State Election Crimes... These have already been proven in court, after all, Cohen was convicted and served time for it. All the prosecutor needs to do is prove that Trump was involved in the coordination of the original crime, prove the new crime, and prove that the new crime was for the purpose of covering up the original crimes... all of which were done in court, where Trump was offered plenty due process.

@@MrLukium you fundamentally misunderstand the law. Brag did not disclose the crime until it got into court. Which is a constitutional violation. He threw several different crimes without fully proving any one singularly. And the jury was not instructed to agree on one particular crime to justify the felony upgrade. You have to clearly be charged and convicted of a specific crime. The charge was unclear and the conviction of the supporting crime was never specified. The appellate court is going to eat this for lunch.

A. He was clearly charged and convicted of 34 counts that were listed in the charging documents, so your claim is unequivocally false... get a refund on the garbage misinformation you're being fed. B. Yes, those charges were brought as upgraded felonies because the crimes were committed for the purpose of covering up a separate crime, as I explained above. You're the one who's clueless about how the law works... the reason why the jury didn't have to agree which crime was being covered up is because multiple different crimes were committed when Cohen paid off Stormy Danies and Karen McDougal. Therefore the each member of the jury only had to conclude that Trump was covering up at least one of the crimes involved.

@@MrLukium bull shit! read the case! Every court submission by both the defendant and the prosecution. You are regurgitating biased information from media outlets. I couldn’t give a rats ass about Trump. Politics needs to stay the hell out of our legal system. These molestations of the law and Justice are unacceptable. What crime did the jury agree upon was the basis for elevating the misdemeanor crimes to the level of felony? Because the Judge, prosecutor, and the defense can’t answer that question. The Jury wasn’t instructed to do so in their deliberation instructions. So you are either lying to your biased viewers telling them what they want to hear, or you are incompetent by saying he was clearly charged. Until the jury is polled and is of majority opinion on the supporting crime which justifies the elevation to felony charges. You have a clear conviction of business fraud which is a misdemeanor.

The requirement for a misdemeanor to be charged as a felony is that the misdemeanor be committed to cover up a felony. Multiple felonies were committed in the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal payments. To meet the requirements each juror has to conclude that the misdemeanor was committed to cover up at least one of the felonies. The idea that they have to agree on which is just propaganda you're desperately trying to hold on to... no, as long as each juror comes to the conclusion that the misdemeanor was committed to cover any one of the felonies already proven, and that Trump was aware of and coordinated to cover up the felony, the requirement has been met. And that's exactly how it played out.

No, making money consistently spreading misinformation, whether willfully or intentionally, is grifting... pointing out a grifter would be the opposite of grifting...

@@MrLukium Sounds like something a grifter would say

@@MrLukium All you exposed is your lack of intelligence

Your inability to offer a counterargument to anything I said proves who lacks intelligence... thanks...

I've always been into both... I don't specifically have an issue with AJW... I've just been too busy with work to work on another video. For example, I gotta do one about Saagar from about 2 weeks ago when he spread complete eugenics klan 1920s propaganda to defend immigration quotas and couldn't call out racism when it was slapping him in his face... I think I have the biggest issue with these pseudo-intelectuals that make claims that are based on completely ahistorical nonsense

That's the main one I've struggled with too

That's the only thing won't drop for me. Game aggravate me sometimes. I get lots crystalization but no energy activator.

@@MrLukium you can purchase through vendor. Thank goodness. Sell all your blueprints that don't need

Are you stupid or are you dumb lol

I don't have any evidence that he seggsually assaults people, but if that's your personal claim, I'm all for taking accusations seriously 🙄

Maybe it's time to stop talking about "threats to democracy" when you're holding the nuclear missile silos open with the finger on the button.

Are we a bit illiterate? Top video in the channel has about 50x the view count of this video lol

Thanks for the feedback! If you wouldn't mind sharing the video it would be great! Right now the video is being swarmed by AJW's community trying to sink it :)

No transcendent mod in this build