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

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Jack V Savage

If no one else will address an issue...

curious of your opinion on the coordinated paid protests and interference as trump rallies and if that is kosher for you or "politcs as usual"
 
Victor Maitland said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Are you sure that's in the emails? Or are you thinking of this recent O'Keefe video?
 
Jack V Savage said:
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?
Click to expand...

she is not against fracking and the last 4 years have shown, in her private speech she clearly labels environmentalists wild and without a grip on reality "get a life" but she needs the votes, openly she wants so much regulation that fracking becomes impossible which has not been the case.

she is good at not having straight answers for policies, she is your typical shady politician that will dance around for all the votes and we she seats into office you won´t have a clue how she will act.

you did not address the big leaks, I have read your stance and you don´t have much to stand. There is no way to defends someone that deletes emails that should have been through a gov account and not a private, Libya might have blown in her face because she never expected the same people she funded to attack the embassy and people died for it... We came, conquered and he died

When you are this invested in a politician is pretty hard to make sense unless you start to downplay everything and pretend "is normal" like Anderson
 
Last edited:
DespicablePeep said:
she is not against fracking and the last 4 years have shown, in her private speech she clearly labels environmentalists wild and without a grip on reality "get a life" but she needs the votes, openly she wants so much regulation that fracking becomes impossible which has not been the case.
Click to expand...

In both cases, she doesn't say she's against fracking at all times (which she shouldn't be); she says that she's against it in most circumstances in one and will support it in some circumstances in the other. Whether you agree or disagree with that position is a policy issue (and a good one! Jesus, could we use some actual, substantial policy discussion here), but not something that appears to be evidence of anything improper. We know she's a liberal, and not an extremist.

DespicablePeep said:
you did not address the big leaks, I have read your stance and you don´t have much to stand.
Click to expand...

What are the big leaks? My "stance" is that I want to know.

DespicablePeep said:
When you are this invested in a politician is pretty hard to make sense unless you start to downplay everything and pretend "is normal" like Anderson
Click to expand...

I'm not invested in any particular politician, though I care a lot about policy. I think Trump's environmental and economic policy, as well as his financial deregulation plan and healthcare rollbacks, likely would have disastrous effects. I also have no confidence in his ability to navigate foreign-policy issues, and would expect disastrous blunders there. I have no such concerns about Clinton, and I think the approach of trying to make the campaign less about issues and more about a firehose of mostly (all?) false accusations does a disservice to the country.

DespicablePeep said:
Probably this
Click to expand...

Given O'Keeffe's history, I'd like to see this looked into more. Deliberately disrupting a rally is bad.
 
panamaican said:
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. :D
Click to expand...


You're confused , I made a post stating that I thought youd bragged about cheating on your wife in a thread long ago.....nothing about her.


You've also gotten the sequence wrong in this thread. My only point in the beginning was that you were just as guilty as anyone else of reverse engineering your information processing around your existing notion. You then blathered about the totally original possibility that you weren't biased at all.......just right, like every other biased ass hole does.

I also didn't call you a liar , you liar. I mockingly questioned your " I'm undecided " claim , a rather ridiculous one of the rest of your post are taken at face value. I think that hardly equates to questioning someone's brain power , which id put on the same plane as questioning someone's choice in a mate......both pretty base.


I used to enjoy your post because I got the impression that you were reasonably impartial, something that you clearly lack now. There are a hundred pages worth of leaks and other information of various levels of unsavoryness here, and you have yet to acknowledge even the slightest possibility of impropriety. If it isn't fake it's no big deal, if it is a big deal it's probably fake.......you can't have an argument with someone that's approaching things from that angle , its like arguing with a mother that her child is flawed .Both of these candidates are deeply flawed by any objective standard , the fact that you can't even crack the door on that possibility says everything. You're sharp enough to realize why Jack savage is so irritating to deal with , those same traits are what I'm seeing in you lately

I think what it boils down to with you pan is an inflated sense of pride. It's why constantly drop your " I'm an attorney " references, or the fact you continually being up your fruitless campaign for dog catcher like it means something, the reason you think everyone needs to look at your wife , the reason you are calling me upset and a " wounded animal " whilst responding with 3 paragraphs worth of insults of your own within 30 seconds of me hitting the post reply button.


You're a dirty , pridefull , emotional, biased little pissant like the rest of us......you just can't come to grips with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a citizen I firmly believe we as a nation should be ashamed that these are the two candidates we have helped put forth as potential future presidents. Trump has shown he's just as much of an idiot as people believed and Hillary is either in knowing collusion and supports the tactics and mindset of her campaign circle or is truly just ignorantly relying on them to prop her up to the presidency which basically makes her nothing but a political sock puppet.

If these are truly the best choices we have to offer each other then I can't say we really are the greatest nation. If I had one wish that I could direct strictly to the presidential race it would be for the American people to declare a vote of no confidence in either candidates and demand our government and political parties put forth new nominations or simply refuse to vote in mass until they do.
 
Last edited:
Jack V Savage said:
What are the big leaks? My "stance" is that I want to know.
Click to expand...

Your stance, its all good, FBI has investigated and found nothing ilegal.

I was talking about policies, she has none on the crucial matters, she just dances around. And like always you skip the questions and divert the discussion to something nitpicked out of a post like me claiming to know your stance. Everyone knows your stance in the leaks it goes like this:

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department."
 
DespicablePeep said:
Your stance, its all good, FBI has investigated and found nothing ilegal.
Click to expand...

The FBI investigated the private server and found nothing illegal, though something that could get sanctions from higher-ups. So there was a mistake there, but it didn't rise to the level of criminality. This latest firehose thing is entirely separate from that. And after someone asked for my reaction, I asked, basically, "to what, specifically?" Which has set off a lot of the partisan fanatics here.

DespicablePeep said:
I was talking about policies we she has none, she just dances around.
Click to expand...

She actually has the most detailed set of proposals I've seen from a candidate, and there's a clear and hugely significant difference in the general outlines of her policy approach with her candidate (deregulate banks vs. regulate further; do nothing to reduce carbon emissions and roll back stuff that has been done to decrease them vs. reduce them further; huge tax cuts for the rich and small tax increases for everyone else vs. small tax increases for the rich; etc.).
 
Last edited:
Why are you guessing flooding the thread arguing with these two? If you guys want to engage the trolls and have debates about whether the grass is green and the sky is blue then start another thread. Quit flooding this one.
 
Jack V SavageFunklord of the USA and the Nicest Guy on Sherdog
NEW
  • You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content
 
TheComebackKid said:
Why are you guessing flooding the thread arguing with these two? If you guys want to engage the trolls and have debates about whether the grass is green and the sky is blue then start another thread. Quit flooding this one.
Click to expand...

yea, you're right...

I'm done taking Jack fuckhead's troll date.
 
Junes said:
Jack V SavageFunklord of the USA and the Nicest Guy on Sherdog
NEW
  • You are ignoring content by this member. Show Ignored Content
Click to expand...
triggered-h3h3-gif-400x209.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,147
Messages
57,971,089
Members
175,885
Latest member
gono

Share this page

Back
Top