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

[panamaican]

" a wounded animal " ,you've certainly got a flare for the dramatic don't you?!


So insulting a person's intelligence is a " reasoned argument " now? You are the one started down the path of personal insults guy, You just happened to be the first one to cry about it too. Don't you have a super important zoning board meeting to run ?

No, you started down that road with saying that I was refusing to review the information neutrally and that my statement that I was undecided was a lie. You call me a liar, I question your intelligence. You get offended but forget that you went personal first. I didn't cry about the personal insults. I pointed out that you weren't even bothering to make rational arguments anymore - the last resort of people who no longer trust their arguments but can't stop arguing.

Classic stuff at this point.

But this is becoming a repeat problem for you. Remember just earlier when you made another unsupported claim about me and my wife and apologized for doing so? I accepted your apology then which is why I'm not surprised you've returned to the same approach here. You don't have an argument so you try to go personal.

But such is life. Everyone claims to appreciate my posting until they find themselves arguing with me and then they don't like me anymore. Poor me.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Spreadsheet of e-mail leaks for anyone interested.

That's too much info!! Can't you guys just post one link on one item!!!

See see! You guys didn't read the emails!!

~ jack savage

 

[Jack V Savage]

Did you or did you not argue that?

Yes. Yes you did. Paraphrasing doesn't change the fact that you took that ridiculous stance.

My take is that CNN has committed some ethical breaches in defense of Trump (basically replacing their usual right-wing commentators because they weren't pro-Trump enough, hiring Lewandowski while he is prevented from saying anything bad about Trump, and generally allowing a major reduction in standards to keep Trump defenders on), but generally has a "neutrality bias."

And putting a paraphrase in quotation marks is unethical unless it's clear that that's what you're doing. LI clearly was confused (though, strangely, given his usual tendency to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, he doesn't hold it against you).

That's too much info!! Can't you guys just post one link on one item!!!

See see! You guys didn't read the emails!!

~ jack savage

Um, OK, are you capable of wrapping your head around the point I'm making? Throwing out several haystacks and asking people to find a needle isn't answering my request. I want the needle.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Did you or did you not argue that?

Yes. Yes you did. Paraphrasing doesn't change the fact that you took that ridiculous stance.

Check and mate.

 

[HereticBD]

My take is that CNN has committed some ethical breaches in defense of Trump (basically replacing their usual right-wing commentators because they weren't pro-Trump enough, hiring Lewandowski while he is prevented from saying anything bad about Trump, and generally allowing a major reduction in standards to keep Trump defenders on), but generally has a "neutrality bias."

Yeah, you're full of shit.

You flat out argued they were leaning right, and treating Hillary unfairly. Period. Anyone who was in those threads saw it. You took a hardline stance that they were firmly against Hillary, and pro-Trump. You're only softening your stance now, because every time it's thrown in your face, it makes you look like a complete moron, and ruins any notion you're trying to sell to to whoever you've baited into your bullshit, that you're being even remotely honest.

 

[chardog]

JVS is a con man, dont even know why you guys bother. He's two faced like the candidate he supports, it's really that simple.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

My take is that CNN has committed some ethical breaches in defense of Trump (basically replacing their usual right-wing commentators because they weren't pro-Trump enough, hiring Lewandowski while he is prevented from saying anything bad about Trump, and generally allowing a major reduction in standards to keep Trump defenders on), but generally has a "neutrality bias."

And putting a paraphrase in quotation marks is unethical unless it's clear that that's what you're doing. LI clearly was confused (though, strangely, given his usual tendency to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, he doesn't hold it against you).



Um, OK, are you capable of wrapping your head around the point I'm making? Throwing out several haystacks and asking people to find a needle isn't answering my request. I want the needle.

Nice try fucko...


you weren't provided with a needle in a haystack...you were provided a plethora of needles..

take your pick, dipshit.

 

[MusterX]

That's too much info!! Can't you guys just post one link on one item!!!

See see! You guys didn't read the emails!!

~ jack savage

Well, they are separated by topic and also give a brief description of what is contained in the e-mail, plus links. I think it paints an overall picture of just how dirty they really are. The opposition will claim that most of that stuff is not a crime but I don't think it matters if its a crime. I don't want a president with a public opinion and a private opinion. What that means is I will lie to your face then do whatever I want once elected.

I don't want a president that seems to have control of 90% of the mainstream media. I don't want a president that keeps a private server, deletes thousands of e-mails, bleaches to hide her tracks, and obstructs justice. I don't want a president that claims Qatar and Saudi Arabia funds ISIS then accept millions of dollars from them. I don't want a president that runs a campaign where they pay people to shut down highways and obstruct the rallies of her opposition candidate.

I don't want a president that surrounds herself with people that have an obvious hatred for Catholics and evangelicals. I don't want a president that calls Americans losers or deplorables, and who, "hates everyday Americans." I don't want a president that will do what it takes to make billionaire and globalist George Soros happy. This would just go on and on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, you're full of shit.

Jesus, man.

You flat out argued they were leaning right, and treating Hillary unfairly. Period. Anyone who was in those threads saw it. You took a hardline stance that they were firmly against Hillary, and pro-Trump. You're only softening your stance now, because every time it's thrown in your face, it makes you look like a complete moron, and ruins any notion you're trying to sell to to whoever you've baited into your bullshit, that you're being even remotely honest.

Nah. You're the one who is not being honest. CNN has been pro-Trump at times, unquestionably (and shortly after the hiring of Lewandowski, which didn't get any attention in the other mainstream media, I would have been stronger on that). As his campaign has derailed, they've jumped ship.

Nice try fucko...

you weren't provided with a needle in a haystack...you were provided a plethora of needles..

take your pick, dipshit.

I almost admire your ability to stay in a constant state of rage and confusion.

JVS is a con man, dont even know why you guys bother. He's two faced like the candidate he supports, it's really that simple.

You guys are humiliating yourselves (which is why you're all getting so mad). It's very, very obvious that none of you has actually read the links.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Yeah, you're full of shit.

You flat out argued they were leaning right, and treating Hillary unfairly. Period. Anyone who was in those threads saw it. You took a hardline stance that they were firmly against Hillary, and pro-Trump. You're only softening your stance now, because every time it's thrown in your face, it makes you look like a complete moron, and ruins any notion you're trying to sell to to whoever you've baited into your bullshit, that you're being even remotely honest.

Damn dude...you're on fire.

Great post.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembered this shithead arguing that CNN 'leaned right' and was "anti-Hillary."

hahahahahahahh.

keep digging yourself in that hole @Jack V Savage ...this is funny.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Jesus, man.



Nah. You're the one who is not being honest. CNN has been pro-Trump at times, unquestionably (and shortly after the hiring of Lewandowski, which didn't get any attention in the other mainstream media, I would have been stronger on that). As his campaign has derailed, they've jumped ship.



I almost admire your ability to stay in a constant state of rage and confusion.

And more lies.

LOL. one of us should go find that direct link to that thread.

This fucking guy is a trip.

 

[Ruprecht]

Spreadsheet of e-mail leaks for anyone interested.

Not very helpful really.
You've got stuff like, "Bill Clinton is damaging for Hillary"... no shit?
Although that's not what the email actually says (and it's listed again under "Media Collusion" as "Bill Clinton's sex life liability").

...and also stuff which is incorrectly labelled. For instance, "Hillary's own advisor blamed Hillary for Benghazi & ..."

When what's actually in the email from Sidney Blumenthal is simply a cut and paste of a Newsweek article.

 

[KinG]

im so discusted by the mainstream media its crazy .... never again can i believe something that comes from them a 100%.... the same bs is here in sweden also

 

[DespicablePeep]

Um, OK, are you capable of wrapping your head around the point I'm making? Throwing out several haystacks and asking people to find a needle isn't answering my request. I want the needle.

Deleted emails, destroyed smartphones, IT guy trying to modify emails, Clinton saying she had no ideia of what is a classified documents, Bernie scandal in the primaries.

All in the first batch, this current batch is mostly politics of someone that is a crook, her husband taking millions just for having a phone call with some rich Arab, Hillary having two stances on any matter one private and other public, pandering to fracking industry

Here public stance:

"I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated.

Her private stance

I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances. I want to defend, you know, new, modern [inaudible]. I want to defend this stuff. And you know, I'm already at odds with the most organized and wildest. They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?' No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know.

is normal, politics so forth, but she is one shady fucker.

 

[Quipling]

Not very helpful really.
You've got stuff like, "Bill Clinton is damaging for Hillary"... no shit?

...and also stuff which is incorrectly labelled. For instance, "Hillary's own advisor blamed Hillary for Benghazi & ..."

When what's actually in the email from Sidney Blumenthal is simply a cut and paste of a Newsweek article.

Looks like you took your pick of the needles and they turned out to be hay.

 

[panamaican]

Um, OK, are you capable of wrapping your head around the point I'm making? Throwing out several haystacks and asking people to find a needle isn't answering my request. I want the needle.

Spreadsheet of e-mail leaks for anyone interested.

These 2 posts summarize the entire issue.

MusterX put out a great list of the email leaks. But if you sit there and go through it (and I've been through half), there isn't anything that falls outside of normal political maneuvering. Some people will object to the maneuvering, some people won't. But that's a partisan thing. These types of communications are in every campaign manager's emails because this how campaigns are run. For example, the media collusion stuff is some of the most empty stuff out there. Every campaign has pet reporters and pet publications, GOP and Dem alike. All of them. Businesses do as well. That's not a problem that makes HRC unelectable unless it makes everyone unelectable. Shit, early in this campaign, Trump was accused of planting stories about himself during his business career. No one cared because it's not a big deal. It's not an offense, it's the reality of how stories get out there.

What people are not pointing to is something that is an actual violation of campaign law or federal law by Hillary Clinton. Not her foundation, not her campaign staff, not her husband. Something she did or directed someone else to do.

 

[Jack V Savage]

All in the first batch, this current batch is mostly politics of someone that is a crook, her husband taking millions just for having a phone call with some rich Arab, Hillary having two stances on any matter one private and other public, pandering to fracking industry

Here public stance:

Her private stance

is normal, politics so forth, but she is one shady fucker.

That seems pretty similar.

"So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place."

vs.

"I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances."

The first bit is, "I will support fracking under certain circumstances, but not in a lot of others," and the second is "I will defend fracking under certain circumstances." The difference is in emphasis rather than substance. Right?

 

[Jack V Savage]

These 2 posts summarize the entire issue.

MusterX put out a great list of the email leaks. But if you sit there and go through it (and I've been through half), there isn't anything that falls outside of normal political maneuvering. Some people will object to the maneuvering, some people won't. But that's a partisan thing. These types of communications are in every campaign manager's emails because this how campaigns are run. For example, the media collusion stuff is some of the most empty stuff out there. Every campaign has pet reporters and pet publications, GOP and Dem alike. All of them. Businesses do as well. That's not a problem that makes HRC unelectable unless it makes everyone unelectable. Shit, early in this campaign, Trump was accused of planting stories about himself during his business career. No one cared because it's not a big deal. It's not an offense, it's the reality of how stories get out there.

What people are not pointing to is something that is an actual violation of campaign law or federal law by Hillary Clinton. Not her foundation, not her campaign staff, not her husband. Something she did or directed someone else to do.

Yeah, this is kind of what I figured. But for people who are outraged, I want like a clear story.

"The email shows Clinton did X, which is illegal/is legal but problematic because Y. Here's the link to that email."

That could either be the starting point of a legitimate, intelligent, civil, important discussion. Or it could just be, "Oh, I see. Yeah, you're right. That's pretty bad."

But, "here, look through this mountain of links, most of which is nothing, and I demand you explain it" is not. People just want to spread propaganda, but it's pointless, as you say. Either you're convinced that she's the devil and you're grasping for anything to back that up or you're not, and you need to see something substantial. Partisanship drives the views. And the thread is just people wanting to express anger at those who don't already agree with them (rather than convince). But we can do better. If there's something real and real evidence for it, those of us who aren't fanatical partisans can really look at it.

 

[Victor Maitland]

Wikileaks are saving their most hard hitting leaks for last..
Their leaks so far have given a nice insight of the wide scale corruption of the democrat party and how they organise violence against opponents .

 

[theBLADE1]

Holy fuck, there are actual clinton shills here claiming these emails aren't damning.

Welcome to 2016

Beautiful isn't it lol. I love watching the Bi partisan brainwashed spin their wheels