Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not trust Wikileaks one bit -- Assange is a middleman/front for Russian intelligence.
I'll ask you what I've asked other Hillary lappies : Have the Clintons, Podesta, DWS, Huma, Mook or any other surrogate denied the authenticity of the Wiki-leaked emails ?
As of now, 116 people believe Wiki over crooked hillary. 7 people believe hillary. That says two things, one, there are actually seven complete fools who believe hillary is truthful. Where have those seven people been for the last 30 years to be so hopelessly stupid?
Second, all of the blind, ignorant hillary lovers in here and all but seven of them know hillary is a congenital liar, but they love her anyway. That says a lot for the votes in this country.
Those who will cast a vote for corrupt hillary will live to regret it. She is pure evil and will destroy America with her open boarders and war on religion, etc, etc...
I'll ask you what I've asked other Hillary lappies : Have the Clintons, Podesta, DWS, Huma, Mook or any other surrogate denied the authenticity of the Wiki-leaked emails ?
I think their problem is that they cannot remember if the emails are correct. Can you remember every word you typed yesterday? They thought they were in the clear when the deleted everything; now they don't know what is true or false. They are also in the dangerous position of denying some of them to have verifying emails surface from another source. They deserve everything they get!
I'll ask you what I've asked other Hillary lappies : Have the Clintons, Podesta, DWS, Huma, Mook or any other surrogate denied the authenticity of the Wiki-leaked emails ?
No, none of them have stated they are authentic. Someone hands you an e-mail at work from a few years ago -- the wording has been changed somewhat. Could you say with absolute certainty that what was written was yours or not?
I like what this person said:
"Lets say that she is guilty of everything… Even if it were all true, she still managed to keep herself out of trouble while just about every republican in a position of power has tried to prove it. That would be AMAZING! How impressive… Listen–Donald Trump can’t even dodge the charges from one little fraudulent “University.” One of two things is true: Either Hillary Clinton’s enemies cannot get any of these charges to stick to her because she is too politically astute, or they’re not sticking because she actually didn’t do them." https://theboeskool.com/2016/07/06/f...ns-corruption/
I can easily see why everyone right-of-center on the political spectrum would hate Hilary Clinton. That just goes with the nature of American politics. But Democrats and middle-of-the-road independents should do their best to double-check the claims made against Clinton by her political enemies. Don't sleepwalk through your life believing stuff just because "everyone says it." And be especially skeptical if people keep claiming, over and over, "It's obvious! Just look!" without ever offering specific, tangible evidence for their claims.
And then there is this thought: If she is not so bad as her enemies say, then she doesn't deserve the attacks against her moral character, and this reflects double-badly on those who are bending over backwards to discredit her at all costs. On the other hand, if she is as bad as they say - if she really does have the power, influence, and political savvy to force the political/legal systems to bend to her will - then I, at least, am happy that she is not pushing a right-wing agenda.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 10-13-2016 at 11:05 AM..
Most media outlets have agendas, however, different media outlets have different agendas.
Being aware of what the particular agenda is allows you to adjust the credibility of the various agencies.
I think that the vast majority of people who selected Wikileaks as the most credible are people who simply subscribe to Julian Assange's agenda.
That or Hillary has demonstrated that she has a complete absence of integrity. Pretty sure last time I heard 67% of Americans don't trust Hillary Clinton.
The media has time and time again demonstrated that they are selective in what they report and how they report it. Anyone who has traveled abroad has witnessed the low quality of our media.
Do I trust wikileaks? No That doesn't mean that I should trust Hillary Clinton at any level when she has proven herself to be completely untrustworthy.
As of now, 116 people believe Wiki over crooked hillary. 7 people believe hillary. ...
More than anything, this reflects the power of "groupthink" and confirmation bias. If a bunch of people shout something loudly enough and persistently enough, the average person will find it extremely difficult to avoid thinking "Well, there must be something to it, if all those people keep saying it." This is a subconscious process, which, unfortunately, makes it even more powerful.
Also: Accusations are easy, and they instantly stick in the public mind. This primes the mind to see "evidence" for the accusations, and tends to make us partially blind to contrary evidence. The only way to resist this subtle influences is to make a purposeful effort to stay skeptical and ask for hard evidence on both sides. Simply repeating the accusations over and over does not count as evidence for anything except as evidence against the accusers themselves. If they really had a ton of objective data in support of their claims, they would offer references to this data every time they made the claim. So the fact that they don't do this is evidence that they probably don't really have the data.
It's easy to say "the facts exist" and generally easy to produce powerful evidence in support of the facts, if the "facts" are actually facts. But it is much harder to actually produce the references on demand when all someone is doing is parroting a statement like "the facts exist" because they are simply standing in a long line of parrots saying "the facts exist."
If the facts are "everywhere" and "obvious" to everyone, then it should be easy to list the facts with references to specific data in support of the claims.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 10-13-2016 at 11:33 AM..
I'll ask you what I've asked other Hillary lappies : Have the Clintons, Podesta, DWS, Huma, Mook or any other surrogate denied the authenticity of the Wiki-leaked emails ?
The emails can't be denied, they are on a cloud.
Last edited by elan; 10-13-2016 at 11:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
