Have you heard about all the secrets leaked by wikileaks recently? They've revealed some crazy and crooked shit, any of you guys read about it?

Frankly, people are getting sick and tired of hearing about Wikileaks, and Ecuador decided to grow a pair and shut off his Internet access and stop trying to influence our election. At this point, Hillary has been accused of just about everything short of murder and cannibalism, and a large amount of them are either trumped up or chalked up to simple arrogance and ignorance, which among political sins, isn't that damning.

There is no real endgame for Assange other than avoiding the sexual assault charges against him, anything else is self-serving excuses.

Clinton supporters dgaf about how flawed their candidate is.

What's amazing is that with all these revelations, anybody who supported Bernie can still stand with that woman. Really highlights a lack of conviction and and principle, which I guess is the very make up of a Hilary supporter.

At 10/23/16 04:59 PM, Dem0lecule wrote: The hilarious thing is all the Trump fans went nuts about Wikileaks cuz they leaked DNC/Hillary shit (I can see dear orangebomb is confused why his Trumpsters support Wikileaks).

First off, if your going to mention my name in a retort, have the balls to respond to my post instead of just throwing my name in an accusation.

Clearly, you have no idea who I am at all, and to say that Trump like Wikileaks because they are providing him with fuel is absolutely asinine. If anything, Trump is exploiting Wikileaks. For the record, I'm a Clinton supporter. Not because she is a nice person, and I'm well aware of her mistakes, but because she is the most qualified.

Maybe if you actually read my posts on the matter instead of shooting from the hip, you would probably know something instead of being a smartass, with an emphasis on ass.

But just so you know that Wikileaks hate all governments equally. It's their core motto "Privacy for the weak, transparency for the strong".

If they hate all governments equally, why not go after the thuggish Russian government, or some of the other corrupt dictatorships that cause more harm and suffering to their own people, let alone others? I guess the pseudo-communist Uzbek government who (allegedly) loves boiling dissenters alive is not as important as trying to influence our election for their own ends.

I guess some are more equal than others.

Cypherpunks hate all governments equally.

Ahh, typical behavior of neckbeards and ITG activists.

At 10/23/16 03:47 PM, orangebomb wrote: At this point, Hillary has been accused of just about everything short of murder and cannibalism....

I've actually seen memes coming up lately accusing her and Bill of being behind the disappearances or murders of political opponents or allies who became inconvenient. Nothing on cannibalism yet.

At 10/23/16 08:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I've actually seen memes coming up lately accusing her and Bill of being behind the disappearances or murders of political opponents or allies who became inconvenient. Nothing on cannibalism yet.

Well, they are memes that are designed for humor, I highly doubt anyone takes the seriously. Still, Clinton has been accused so much and of so many things, (and not just from Trump) it's makes all of the things she actually has done go by the wayside. And then there are folks like Dem and the OP who claim that Clinton is "teh kurupt" because Wikileaks releasing e-mails and documents that is usually taken out of context, and that's not including the fact that a foreign influence is trying to mess with our election, how is that okay?

At 10/23/16 08:49 PM, orangebomb wrote: Well, they are memes that are designed for humor, I highly doubt anyone takes the seriously.

Then you haven't been on Facebook or other social media lately. People are accusing her of murder either because of Benghazi, or because certain allies or aides have died. People are making videos, coming up with phony articles and other assorted "evidence" or stretching out other events she has only a tangential relation to and saying she bears the blame. The ridiculous is getting stronger and stronger as we get closer and her election looks more certain. It's clearly not going to die down or go away after the 8th.

Still, Clinton has been accused so much and of so many things, (and not just from Trump) it's makes all of the things she actually has done go by the wayside.

Agreed, a lot of the problem comes from one or two columnists 20 years ago or so and that the Repubs have known for a long, long time that she'd run, and she might actually win. But the problem is when you smear someone with easy to prove false info.....anything bad they actually do goes away because you've already lost your credibility. Boy who cried Wolf syndrome.

And then there are folks like Dem and the OP who claim that Clinton is "teh kurupt" because Wikileaks releasing e-mails and documents that is usually taken out of context, and that's not including the fact that a foreign influence is trying to mess with our election, how is that okay?

Agreed. I also think some of the problem is people not understanding how these things work. For example I've seen some people bellyaching about a release of an email about Clinton's opposition research on Sanders which concluded she needed to paint him as a failed law maker. Well, look kids....he was the opponent. If you got into his campaign emails at that time, you'd be seeing some very similar stuff from his files. I assume Trump had something similar (though his campaign is smaller, less traditional, and infinitely less organized). This is what happens when people who have not even an inkling of how the sausage is made get a look at the factory, get horrified and run off screaming thinking that it clearly must be just this ONE factory that does it that way, instead of that's just the ugly, but necessary process of getting you the sausage.

At 10/25/16 04:35 AM, hektikmusic wrote: Hillary supporters suffer from the worst cases of delusionary denial and think all her corruption scandals are just a "Republican conspiracy".

The fact that none of them have ever brought a conviction or any real evidence of wrong doing is conspiracy now? Interesting definition....

The truth is that they make no effort to find out what were in the leaks and they really don't care because they have completely bought into the most corrupt status-quo candidate of all time.

She's been investigated by Congress several times.....no charges. Boy how they tried!

She's been investigated by the FBI.....no charges.

Are you saying all of these investigators are incompetent? Where's your credentials to prove you are an expert?

She's a neocon cut from the same cloth as George W. Bush.

Nah. I think she leans to the right of The Democratic Center....but that's hardly a George Bush level neocon.

The Podesta emails....

You know all that stuff was probably grabbed from a Russian hack right? Wikileaks doesn't check or verify anything their handed. They just get a trove of documents and hit "publish". That's why wikileaks is actually dangerous. It's easy to con them, even if you aren't conning them, there is the possibility they get people killed or endangered because they do not adhere to the ethics or the policies of a journalist. Sometimes the public doesn't need to know because if they knew, people's lives would be in danger.

BTW, Hillary Clinton acknowledged the validity of the Podesta leaks during the 2nd and 3rd debate.

I watched both of those and I don't remember that. I remember her largely ignoring the accusations and if she did mention them she pointed out what I just did, these were documents that were probably from Russia's data breach of the DNC and with that being the case....with the amount of time they sat on them before releasing them to wikileaks it's very easy to imagine they were altered.

Tim Kaine has also admitted this and so have several other people whose email addresses appeared in correspondence with Podesta.

Sources. Because this is all news to me that any of them are going on record and saying "yes, these things are real and happened....please help me tie this noose around my neck a bit tighter would you?"

Even without these leaks, the trail of her corruption if printed would go to the moon and back 10x. The infmaous "Clinton body count" spans from sea to shining sea. Seriously, why haven't you Hillary supporters gone extinct yet?

Because people like you say things like the "Clinton body count" you accuse her of murder with ZERO proof. It's just "oh, these people disappeared....they knew her.....SHE KILLED THEM!!!"

It's sick.

At 10/25/16 04:47 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You know all that stuff was probably grabbed from a Russian hack right? Wikileaks doesn't check or verify anything their handed. They just get a trove of documents and hit "publish".

This is the point that I was trying to make, how can you trust someone who doesn't verify their sources, let alone a group that really has (or should have) no stake into our election? Trump has been bloating about how those e-mails make her awful, and yet she has a massive lead in the polls so far and is increasing coming down the stretch. I know that there a lot of other factors as well, but that's getting off-topic.

And so far no one (except for aviewaskewed) has really answered my question, If Wikileaks hates government that much, why go after us instead of the Russians or other hostile governments that have done far more damage and threatened to destabilize their respective regions, if not the world? If nothing else, it does add more suspicion to a group that is not well liked to begin with.

That's why wikileaks is actually dangerous. It's easy to con them, even if you aren't conning them, there is the possibility they get people killed or endangered because they do not adhere to the ethics or the policies of a journalist. Sometimes the public doesn't need to know because if they knew, people's lives would be in danger.

Y'know I never really thought of that TBH. I kind of figured that they're the equivalent of a schoolyard snitch who goes "Imma tell on you" to the teacher, which often gets ignored. Having said that, it's easy for social justice groups like them to be conned, much less hijacked by someone who could easily get someone killed or ruined for reasons, and we be none the wiser until it's too late. That's why I get peeved when apologists like Dem keep protecting them and take them as purely noble heroes when they try to screw with our election, let alone the possibility of damaging our alliances or worse.

At 10/25/16 06:01 PM, hektikmusic wrote: Al Capone was a murderer and a racketeering gangster. He went to prison for tax evasion.

But they caught him on that tax evasion, and convincted him. This is not a rebuttal, this is an apples to oranges non-sequitor.

When 5 of your aides are offered immunity or plead the 5th...

Source? Cause those matter. Usually these things are spouted by biased Republican organs like Fox or breitbart. It'd be like me saying "I have proof the democratic party is the greatest party ever....I simply went and asked the democratic party!"

Conspiracy.

Kid, the point is the point. Until somebody comes up with some concrete evidence that these things played a role, it's all just speculation and the standard of law in this country is justifiably higher then "this looks funny....let's arrest and try this fucker!". Especially when these things are trumped up (no pun intended) and parroted by very obviously biased outlets with a horse in the race and it's in their interest to make sure any Democrat isn't elected to high office. Sources matter.

I don't care who hacked the emails, I care what was in them.

You should. Because whoever hacked them, winds up with CONTROL of them. The fact that they were taken, and then not released for months and months should be a red flag. Another problem is Wikileaks dumps them without context, so any outlet who wants to grab them, edit them, or simply spin them has free reign to do so (and has done so already). This is why having what is called the "autograph" (a pristine, first gen copy of the text that you know to not have been altered) is so crucial in any research project. Right now we aren't sure how authentic these documents might be.

I'm sure you don't care that someone stole Trump's 1995 tax returns, just what you think they mean.

I do care, that's a terrible crime against a private citizen if they were in fact stolen (but it looks pretty good they were). However, you're doing apples to oranges again. The NYT is subject to libel laws (wikileaks isn't) the Times has a fleet of attorneys to protect them and make sure they first CAN publish, and that it's a good idea to do so. Secondly they apply journalistic standards to make sure the documents are credible and authentic (going back to that "autograph" type of thing we talked about earlier). The NYT is a better source then wikileaks because they are held to a higher legal and ethical standard, and they have a good reputation for reporting the truth.

Here's a video of Hillary responding to a statement found in the Podesta leaks and then expanding on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGGvDzFc2cs

Which goes back to what I was saying about even when you've got a document that is true, she is starting with "ok, this is out of context, here's the context, here's the rest of the statement". So this goes back to what I was saying about even when you've got a document she's admitting has truth, it's out of context, it's misreported and because of that you lose the essential truth of that document. Also, acknowledging one email is not the same as saying "all of these are true" or "all of these have not been altered". You haven't given a smoking gun for their truth....and even if you can, no legitimate summary I've seen so far shows any illegal activity.

Here's Tim Kaine getting owned on discussion of Wikileaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsxPKOsZmAs

Ok, now you're shifting the goal posts. You said that Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton admitted the leaks were genuine. Hillary is admitting one document is legitimate, but the statement she was asked was incomplete, so you can say pretty easily that we didn't get the whole truth then in that exchange. Tim Kaine here is DENYING THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENT. He may be wrong, very possible. But you said he acknowledged it's real. Here he is saying the exact opposite. So this is not proof of the point you wanted to make.

I'm not going to do all your research for you.

Oh, another one who doesn't know how debate works! If you make the claim, it is your job to prove the claim. It is not my job to disprove the claim. If I say to you "The Earth is Flat" it is up to me to prove the Earth is indeed flat. You then if you don't agree refute me, and provide evidence proving that the Earth is not flat. That's how this works.

If you refuse to look on YouTube for easily accessible information then that's your choice to remain uninformed and ignorant.

Lol. I'd say you have a bit to learn on how to do so since you're first link only kind of refutes me (then proves a different point I made) and the second video you linked proves what you said to be completely false.

The fact is, not a single email released has been debunked and quite the opposite, they're being confirmed as real by the senders/receivers including Podesta himself.

Define "debunked". Because part of the problem is the reportage of those emails. People are reading them wrong, people are dicing them up and presenting them without context to create whatever imaginary "gotcha" they want, which is why a lot of outlets are largely ignoring them. There's nothing truly damaging or disqualifying that's been uncovered so far when they're reported correctly and with the proper context.

We know that the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders,

Nope. We don't in fact. We know they FAVORED Hillary over Sanders. We knew that before this. But we've got no evidence that any votes were changed or anything against their rules was done. That's the other thing people forget here, the Parties have very few rules when it comes to their primaries and caucauses because they didn't provide for any of that in the Constitution. There's some basic election rules they have to follow, the rest of it is up to them.

we know that Hillary has public and private stances on policy,

So does pretty much every candidate ever. This is part of the "Grow Up" stance this election is uncovering for me. This idea that politicians somehow must be pure. They're people. Unless what she says privately is something totally illegal or immoral, and then she tries to get that passed, I'm ok with someone who publicly does the right things for their political gain and privately maybe doesn't quite believe it was the best thing. The result of doing it in reverse is things like the Congressional veto on the 9/11 lawsuit legislation where lawmakers almost immediately afterwards have buyers remorse.

we know that Hillary has colluded with the media and with her super-PACS which is against the law,

Do we? Source that please. I'd really like to have a look at who's saying that....I have a feeling it's someone with a bias again.

we know that DNC contractors have paid mentally challenged people to incite violence at Trump rallies,

That's been debunked, when anybody has even tried to touch it in the first place.

we know that Democrat partisan groups have been practicing illegal election rigging methods. Not only did Wikileaks reveal all of this, but it's easily confirmable with a few quick searches.

Then do it man. You're making the claim, provide the evidence. If it's anything like your last two videos....we should be able to knock them down by dinner tomorrow :)

Every time I see either of the candidates I hear circus music. BU Bu Bu BU BU bb Baaa Ba Baaaa!

If the truth is what you're after, YouTube aint the place to get it.

As for WikiLeaks, I never liked them. His dealings with Snowden soured me on them quite strongly. His insistence in meddling in elections shows me that he cares not about the truth, but about power.

Seems the general theme of this thread is reality vs Clinton talking points.

At 10/25/16 11:17 PM, hektikmusic wrote: I don't want to play the logical fallacy game with you anymore.

Translation: Oh, you've brought up things I can't counter. Let me just claim victory where I should concede defeat and slink off. Because I've clearly been bested but don't have the spine to admit as such and gain the respect of the public here. It's sad this keeps happening.

you're not looking for dirt on Clinton so you won't find any and your confirmation bias will be secured.

This is a deliberate goal post shift and misrepresentation of what I've said and asked for. I am NOT happily voting for this candidate, I am voting for the only option I am presented that has a chance of doing something even close to what I want done. Dirt is cool and I'd even welcome it. But it's gotta be legit dirt, from good sources. Not tabloid stuff like what I read today from an Enquierer headline of "Hillary's hitman tells all!". The bar is higher for me then that. If you can meet that? Awesome! Let's talk! If not....then as politely as I can say it....let's disengage and walk until we've got something more concrete.

Just explain how an honest public servant is worth a quarter billion dollars and we'll be all good.

I never claimed that. Please cite some legitimate sources for your claims, we can handle that, and then we can talk about what I believe.

Please cite your sources.

You show me yours, and I'll show you mine. I asked first, this is like playing a game of five card stud and i say "call" you say "well, no, first I say call....then you prove why you can say 'call'" That is just not how the game is played. I'm happy to play by the established rules. I'm just not so happy to play a game where we make it up as we go along.

If you wanted proof of Hillary's corruption it's an easy search.

If you say "she is corrupt!" and I say "please provide the evidence for why she is corrupt" then the rules of the game (and again, I go back to Poker, because poker is valid here, where when one person says "call" the other is obliged to show their cards) say that YOU need to provide the sources. Not me. This is why we're in the mess we're in in this country I truly believe. We aren't able to agree on what the rules of this game we're playing are.

You can find videos of Trey Gowdy grilling her staff.

Who is he? What are his credentials? Why should I know his name and why is it important (I don't know either of these things honestly)? HELP ME UNDERSTAND!!!

We know that several DNC contractors have been fired or forced to resign because of the election rigging that Project Veritas revealed.

Again, sources, credibility. Do not assume things you know, are common knowledge things. Build your case sir!!! That is not the same as "build your case....because you're full of shit" or "you are guilty until proven innocent" or more appropriately "you are wrong, until proven correct". This is a situation where you are just throwing things out there that I myself aren't familiar with (and I'm averaging an article or two a day since this mess of an election started, sometimes more) and I don't know these sources you mention. Put them out. Let's put them to the acid test and see if they hold up. I want to have a real and honest dialogue here, but we can't do that if we aren't both, real and honest.

Anyway, here's a video of Hillary Clinton lying for 70 minutes, enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uT68riwrFI
Good luck with that river of denial.

Two problems for credibility jump out at me at the immediate. I have a graphic before I even play it of "liar liar, pants on fire!!!!" so the bias is right there. Then when I hit play, I've got a trusted news source (CBS) but I've got a JUMP CUT mid sentence, a clumsy one too....it's obvious they're splicing things together. When you don't play the full thing uninterrupted, and you put your bias and stated aim out there before I even hit play....why am I going to spend an hour of my life on it? Unless it says exactly what I want it to say.

Tell you what, you deal with my assertions honest and fair, and I'll give you that hour with your video and look at it honest and fair? Sound like a deal? If not, just say no, and we'll part here. I'm willing to discuss, but I refuse to be in a position where I'm constantly dictated to and my points are totally ignored in the process.

At 10/26/16 08:20 AM, anvilpoundcake wrote: Seems the general theme of this thread is reality vs Clinton talking points.

Really it's "people coming in against Hillary Clinton" vs. "People who will hear their evidence....but all they have is fallacy, bad sources, and nothing that's ever been tested". I see it all over. You guys think social media makes you good at social issues. It doesn't. But please, provide some sources, hit us with more then a pithy sentence, and prove me wrong.

At 10/25/16 06:20 PM, orangebomb wrote:

That's why wikileaks is actually dangerous. It's easy to con them, even if you aren't conning them, there is the possibility they get people killed or endangered because they do not adhere to the ethics or the policies of a journalist. Sometimes the public doesn't need to know because if they knew, people's lives would be in danger.

This is why I was against the Manning leaks. Those contained names and other specific information that got a lot of people killed.

Y'know I never really thought of that TBH. I kind of figured that they're the equivalent of a schoolyard snitch who goes "Imma tell on you" to the teacher, which often gets ignored. Having said that, it's easy for social justice groups like them to be conned, much less hijacked by someone who could easily get someone killed or ruined for reasons, and we be none the wiser until it's too late. That's why I get peeved when apologists like Dem keep protecting them and take them as purely noble heroes when they try to screw with our election, let alone the possibility of damaging our alliances or worse.

I like how a lot of leftists loved Wikileaks up until it was Hillary they went after.

One effect I have seen is it's turned the Berners/alt left off Hillary forever. Good luck getting their support in the election (third party/write in?) or any sort of mandate.

The Washington Post had an article on how if Hillary becomes president, Sanders (and likely his coalition) plan to be a thorn in her side. Hillary will either ignore them completely and do what she intended (most likely, she's pragmatic) or they will cause Tea Party-style gridlock on the left and nothing will get done. A third option is they will cause that gridlock to try and block anything she wants done.

Let's look at the Supreme Court, for example. Right now, it looks like the GOP will be keeping the Senate. If the Dems win it, it will be by a very thin margin. So, Hillary can either nominate a lefter-than-normal judge to try and appease the left, and risk not having enough Republican votes for a nomination to pass. Or, she can nominate a moderate or a slight conservative to get the nominee through, but the left will throw a tantrum. Given Hillary's history, I am guessing she will do the latter (especially since it is easier).

Things like this are what'll spark the Tea Party issues I mentioned in a previous thread on the left unless Hillary and her coalition either find some way to rein in the crazies or just expel them from the party entirely.

EDIT: What I meant to add is that what people are seeing in the leaks is what'll foment the discontent among the alt left.

At 10/26/16 07:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/26/16 08:20 AM, anvilpoundcake wrote: Seems the general theme of this thread is reality vs Clinton talking points.

Really it's "people coming in against Hillary Clinton" vs. "People who will hear their evidence....but all they have is fallacy, bad sources, and nothing that's ever been tested". I see it all over. You guys think social media makes you good at social issues. It doesn't. But please, provide some sources, hit us with more then a pithy sentence, and prove me wrong.

I don't use social media, so there ya go, being right as always.

The number of people who gained immunity during the FBI investigation seems like very basic info, if you really know about how things unfolded and shook out.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/five-clinton-aides-received-immunity-deals-in-fbi-probe/article/2602684
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-lawmaker-fbi-gave-immunity-152833146.html

"Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff, received an immunity deal from the Justice Department during the year-long FBI investigation of Clinton’s server.

Two other State Department staffers, John Bentel and Heather Samuelson, were also given immunity agreements, bringing the total number of witnesses who were protected by deals to five.

Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former IT aide, and Paul Combetta, an employee at the firm hired to manage her server after she left the State Department, received such protection through deals that were reported previously."

http://usapoliticsnow.com/five-clinton-aides-received-immunity-deals-fbi-probe/

The interesting thing about these Hilary Wikileaks, anyone associated with the emails hasn't denied much of anything. Yes they've distracted and tried to reduce the believably of them in a broad way by talking about the RUSSIAN hacks. But outright questioned, I haven't seen much denial of actual message content.

At 10/23/16 03:47 PM, orangebomb wrote: Frankly, people are getting sick and tired of hearing about Wikileaks, and Ecuador decided to grow a pair and shut off his Internet access and stop trying to influence our election. At this point, Hillary has been accused of just about everything short of murder and cannibalism, and a large amount of them are either trumped up or chalked up to simple arrogance and ignorance, which among political sins, isn't that damning.

There is no real endgame for Assange other than avoiding the sexual assault charges against him, anything else is self-serving excuses.

Short of murder? She has been strongly accused of several accounts of murder and the evidence is damning.

Speak for yourself with regards to people being tired of having big interest's anti-peoplelikeus actions revealed.

I know that sounds terrible. And who would want their favorite liberal candidates crimes revealed?

Leftard.

At 10/23/16 03:47 PM, orangebomb wrote: Frankly, people are getting sick and tired of hearing about Wikileaks

"People" who never wanted to hear negative about Hilary in the first place. There are plenty of others who care and wish others weren't so blindly biased and willfully ignorant.

At 10/27/16 12:50 AM, sharpnova wrote: Short of murder? She has been strongly accused of several accounts of murder and the evidence is damning.

Okay then, what proof do you have? Accusations is one thing and so far all of them have been proven false and trumped up. I'll bet that you probably get your information from the National Enquirer or some other tabloid.

Speak for yourself with regards to people being tired of having big interest's anti-peoplelikeus actions revealed.

Let's see, a rogue organization that is conviently leaking e-mails that were originally hacked by the Russians in order to influence our elections, and that's not getting into all of the shit Wikileaks has done behind our back. They are not for the people and never were, it's all about one man's ego and how much shit he's willing to pull for self-serving reasons.

Doesn't it disturb you enough that there is foreign groups are trying to influence our elections? Not to mention that Wikileaks attacking a leftist candidate (okay, center-left if you want to get technical) when leftists have been supporting them this whole time, that's totally not ironic.

I know that sounds terrible. And who would want their favorite liberal candidates crimes revealed?

If they were crimes, and they aren't. Trump is bloating about this during his campaign in spite of the research saying otherwise, how that's working out? The point I'm trying to make is that you need proof for these accusations against Hillary and all we have is e-mails and hearsay that is taken way out of context.

At 10/27/16 11:11 AM, orangebomb wrote: I'll bet that you probably get your information from the National Enquirer or some other tabloid.

Hold on a second. I'm happy to support my facts here. But before we continue, let's make sure we're being clear.

Do you genuinely believe I get my information from a tabloid? Like honestly believe that. Or did you just say that to be insulting?

Not looking for a justification/explanation or anything like that. Just a simple question. Do you really "bet" that or were you not serious?

At 10/26/16 11:50 PM, anvilpoundcake wrote: I don't use social media, so there ya go, being right as always.

Apologies. I over generalized and that was pretty shitty of me. Not a good way to start a dialogue.

The number of people who gained immunity during the FBI investigation seems like very basic info, if you really know about how things unfolded and shook out.

Immunity deals do look pretty bad. But even with that, nothing was turned up. It's possible they made those deals out of fear and because they had good lawyers and gamed some folks who were helping to uncover dynamite that'd blow up Clinton. But it didn't happen.

The interesting thing about these Hilary Wikileaks, anyone associated with the emails hasn't denied much of anything. Yes they've distracted and tried to reduce the believably of them in a broad way by talking about the RUSSIAN hacks. But outright questioned, I haven't seen much denial of actual message content.

Not much denial of message content no (other then Tim Kaine's continuing ability to show he has no clue how to do proper damage control with anything), but there is a lot of pivoting. A lot "yes, I did send that....but you aren't reading the whole thing" or "that was said....but here's the context". The problem with the emails is a lot of the reporting on them has been done with a certain amount of bias or misunderstanding of what they say or do. Some of the stuff I'm reading about is things I read about from HST when he covered the 72 campaign and was in the trenches there. Campaigns are ugly things and when you really start to dig in, you get horrified at exactly how dirty candidates will get and how they'll try to destroy each other just for the nod to TRY and win the Oval.

My point is, maybe there's something explosive or worth knowing there, but so far we haven't seen it. The fact that a foreign power did the hack, as clearly a way to destablize the election SHOULD be concerning. I don't understand why you and others brushing that off.

At 10/27/16 04:56 PM, sharpnova wrote: Do you genuinely believe I get my information from a tabloid? Like honestly believe that. Or did you just say that to be insulting?

Honestly, I was trying to be somewhat facetious with that claim. Thing is, it seems like everyone who has criticized Clinton in this thread seems to get their "facts" from tabloids, and that's being kind. Also, no one who have criticized my viewpoints didn't even bother to answer my questions at all, or has responded with cheap insults, so forgive me if I come off a bit harsh when nobody has retorted any of my opinions with any decent sources or logical thought.

If you can come with credible sources, then we may debate on this.

At 10/27/16 09:04 PM, orangebomb wrote: If you can come with credible sources, then we may debate on this.

Donald Trump is my source. And I think if he can make billions of dollars he probably knows a thing or two about Killary

Lol this thread.
Anyone got a tl;dr??

Wait... let me guess. It goes like...
"DEMS IS CRAZY CONSPIRATEY THEORISMS. IT'S ALL LIES I TEL YE"

Open your eyes people. Wiki leaks is some of the only pure and neutral journalism around. There is no agenda. No endgame. That's the point. It will definitely outlive Assange, or any of those other muppets. It's for the people. For your best interest. Finally giving politics some transparency.

Don't hate on it if you're not even gonna read it or consider for a second that you get your "news" from Entertainment Networks.

At 10/28/16 03:17 AM, Dem0lecule wrote: So for a sec before you think that he would support Trumpster, he won't.

It's their job to take down the US government, piece by piece.

yeah but here's the thing: Hilary has actually been part of the government for decades; Trump has been on reality television. What you hypothesize about Trump could be very true down the line but in this current binary voting system it's clear who Wikileaks would support.

At 10/28/16 01:23 AM, sharpnova wrote:

At 10/27/16 09:04 PM, orangebomb wrote: If you can come with credible sources, then we may debate on this.

Donald Trump is my source. And I think if he can make billions of dollars he probably knows a thing or two about Killary

Well, so much for that. I can see that you're not going to bother listening to reason, so I'll stop here and leave you to your National Enquirer.

At 10/28/16 12:38 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 10/28/16 01:23 AM, sharpnova wrote:

At 10/27/16 09:04 PM, orangebomb wrote: If you can come with credible sources, then we may debate on this.

Donald Trump is my source. And I think if he can make billions of dollars he probably knows a thing or two about Killary

Well, so much for that. I can see that you're not going to bother listening to reason, so I'll stop here and leave you to your National Enquirer.

What a surprise. Someone with libtard political views assumes people who disagree with him are dumber than him.

I assure you, I am much more intelligent and informed than you.

At 10/28/16 12:38 PM, orangebomb wrote: Well, so much for that. I can see that you're not going to bother listening to reason, so I'll stop here and leave you to your National Enquirer.

Don't feed the damn trolls if you please.