Wikileaks releases emails from Clinton campaign chair (John Podesta) Prt 2 Assange Internet Shut Off

Status
Not open for further replies.
Octavian said:
Can someone give me the cliff notes and concrete facts here?

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

I've been asking. Other people have asked. The response is generally rage. I doubt anyone spreading partisan propaganda can really explain anything.

MusterX said:
Name one presidential nominee more corrupt than Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Trump, McCain, Bush, Bill, Bush, Reagan... And FYI, Trump is easily tops.
 
Octavian said:
I meant cliffs for the trash Sodapopinski is posting. I want deets on the latest james okeefe right wing conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Yea, I don't know what you are specifically referring to but O'Keefe has released multiple videos illustrating how the DNC gets things done. Here is a couple examples.

This one shows how they pay people to obstruct Trump rallies and shut down highways.

H2v7xHsW9pY6447swQlAe__PDeL1dhTAhkdyJJ7uoiQ.png


Here is another one talking about how mentally ill people are hired to do shit.

Cu_RFApW8AA5Q_8.jpg
 
God... Okeefe is such a brilliant truther! Breitbart is probably raging in his grave
 
Jack V Savage said:
I've been asking. Other people have asked. The response is generally rage. I doubt anyone spreading partisan propaganda can really explain anything.



.
Click to expand...

More bullshit from you. You've asked and you've been answered several times. You have ignored several posts that directly address your questions.

Fuck off already.
 
sodapopinski said:
The comments section might as well be written by JVS.
Click to expand...

must be payed organization, people can´t be this crazy

adamrussell Ars Scholae Palatinae
REPLYOCT 17, 2016 7:43 PMPOPULAR
Bottom line is that the State dept was hacked and Hillary's private server was not.
She was right to keep her stuff off their stuff.
Click to expand...

After 30 pages is funny how Hillary voters will acknowledge that what she does IS politics and people should not complain, to them if they break the law and are imoral "is normal", nothing wrong with her antics. She clearly violated protocol in top secret docs, her org receives international money which probably spilled to her campaign and that is not acceptable.

According to the Federal Election Commission, political candidates are not allowed to receive campaign donations from foreign nationals. Foreign nationals include: foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations, partnerships, persons with foreign citizenship, and non-permanent resident immigrants. Permanent residents, or "green card" holders, may donate to political candidates.
Click to expand...
 
Overpressure said:
If this is real the only thing it proves is that some Secret Service agents didn't pay attention to the oaths they took.
But I find that pretty unlikely.
Click to expand...

What do you mean if its real? That is documents released by the F.B.I. themselves.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
Whats your summary of this situation? Your posts have been too cryptic for me to figure it out.
Click to expand...
It's all an exercise in futility, but it's good exercise nonetheless.

I guess all I'm saying is that jet fuel can indeed melt steel.
 
Overpressure said:
If I didn't know you I'd've thought this was a joke reply.
Click to expand...

I guess you are going over my head. I have no idea what you are talking about and I have no idea where the doc is that says secret service didn't want to guard her.
 
LogicalInsanity said:
More bullshit from you. You've asked and you've been answered several times. You have ignored several posts that directly address your questions.

Fuck off already.
Click to expand...

You're an angry little guy, huh?

If my request for a clear explanation of the issue with evidence or a focus on a single strong point was answered, can you link to it? I missed it.

Overpressure said:
If I didn't know you I'd've thought this was a joke reply.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it boils down to. These guys are absolutely convinced that there's something damning here, but there is no way they're going to actually, like, read and shit to find out what it is. So they just assert it's there and get mad if you ask them to point it out specifically.
 
Al Gorithm said:
Undecided huh?

Let me know when you finally get around to deciding between the degenerate destroyer of lives, and the person that will " genuinely make a good President " . Must be an agonizing choice for you!


My only point and the only reason that I engaged you was to point out that despite all of your holier than though grandstanding, and masquerading as an impartial observer , that your take on the information is pretty obviously informed by your opinion.........not the other way around. The disingenuous " Undecided" tripe is simply you clumsily refusing to paint yourself in a corner , it's a bit late for that.
Click to expand...

See, this is why you make less and less sense over time. I didn't say I think she would make a good President. I said her supporters think that she will make a good President. You're so wrapped up in whatever that you're not even reading things properly.

What grandstanding or masquerading? I really want to avoid insulting your intelligence but you're making it very hard. I've always supported immigration control and even at least one thread defended exactly how I think Trump could force Mexico to build a wall.

Your other argument is laughable because it's the exact reason that I think most Trump supporters are idiots. My take on the information in as neutral as I can make it. I go and look into the Wikileaks allegations. I don't just read them from Wikileaks and assume them to be true. 99% of it is normal political maneuvering and nothing is actually illegal. That I've bothered to actually research it instead of swallowing it hook, line, and sinker seems to offend people who don't want to actually do any thinking.

This is the absurdity of the whole thing. You want to believe that everything in Wikileaks is criminal and a smoking gun because you want to believe that HRC is crooked. Your opinion on HRC is driving how you interpret the information. But you don't care that none of it is actually illegal or even unusual. When the FBI says Clinton didn't do anything criminal...the FBI is in her pocket.

Yet these people will turn around and excuse evidence of Trump doing legal things that are clearly about harming Americans and call it smart business. When Trump says his bankruptcies are evidence of smart use of the system - you don't question that (and you should because while they can be smart business, they're often the result of bad business).

You and others are applying these extremely different standards to how you're processing this information. You're so desperate for evidence that HRC is as bad as you believe to justify voting for Trump so you exaggerate everything into a massive crime.

You can miss me with that bullshit. I'm not as stupid as these people are so I'm not going to read emails describing legal political maneuvering as some kind of illegal gotcha. All it tells me is that these people have no idea how things get done. Sit on a board or negotiate something that will be reviewed by the public and you'll see email exchanges like this all of the time. I sit on a board, half of our emails relate to how we're going to handle the public part of our jobs since they will always ask questions about things they just don't understand. Things they have nt thought about from the big picture, etc. When I meet with the insurers, I have to get a great deal from them. When I meet with the lawyers, I need to get a different deal from them. When I meet with builders, I have a different goal with them. You read my emails or those of my board members, you see the same type of thing.

I don't see the emails the way you wish I did because I have more experience in this area than you do and, laughably, I'm not concerned with justifying a vote for/against anyone. I'm just gathering information and weighing it neutrally. Unlike you, whose already made up your mind and are incapable of neutral information assessment.
 
Teen Wolf said:
I'm not to stupid to read the guidelines you retard. Also typing out a comment asking for cliffs takes less time to watch a shitty video.
Click to expand...

The ts was too lazy to make a proper thread. Why should we assume some lazy ass who can't even make a proper thread would post a video worth watching? There are a million articles or videos to watch, why should we just waste ten minutes on this one?
 
CableandThanos said:
yea, you were to fuckin stupid to click the button and listen to 10 bits of info. You got time to type out comments and copy and paste "sherdog guidelines".

Click the play button
Click to expand...
For a supporter of the law and order candidate, you sure arent a fan of following really basic rules.

If you cant follow the rules in a forum, how are you going to follow the rules in the real world?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,274,946
Messages
57,958,246
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair

Share this page

Back
Top