Longknife

Who do you guys trust more: Hillary or the Snake from the Garden of Eden?

All DNC leaked voicemail in one convenient video. Not perfect however cause names aren't attached to the voices. Still, since I'm sure plenty of people are lazy about digging through wikileaks stuff, I think it's a good first step; get people to listen, then to check for who said what out of curiousity after.

Just popping in to show off this and this.

Time for some photography admiration. Photo of Sanders immediately after his speech endorsing Hillary Clinton: https://twitter.com/TotesMcGotes/status/758175689346523136

Do you know what objective thinking is? It's that thing you never do. There's so many problems with this post I don't even know where to start. Your logic - summarized - is "Assange did something that hurts someone in the USA and therefore he MUST BE AGAINST ALL OF WESTERN IDEALS AND PHILOSOPHIES AS WE KNOW IT and no it is not possible to be critical of one's faults in hopes that helps them improve."

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment. Let me frame the question a different way " what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ? Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know. The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations. That's you. That's how crazy you sound. I'm not sure I understand your analogy Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile? Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ? ... You are both failing to understand the analogy, and you are instead insisting to me that it is far better if I needlessly speculate without any evidence whatsoever about what Assange's motivations may be. Some people were dropped on their heads as children, then there's you. Dude your head must've been mistaken for a football and thrown to the ground during an enthusiastic touchdown celebration. Why are you now objecting to speculating, you happily speculate on other topics ? But your response was predictable. you cant answer my question and instead of admitting that you feel the need to make personal attacks on me...as usual.... And you think I debate in bad faith Ok Bruce, here you go, gonna drop a bombshell for you: Maybe Assange genuinely cares about the American people and feels we have a right to know when we're being cheated, because he believes in the principles of Democracy. Yknow, like all those people that are upset with Clinton for the exact same reason? Like Snowden's motivations for what he did? What do *you* think Assange's motivations are? Likewise, to a small degree, I can understand why you would want to classify my belief the election was bought as "speculation." However, there is a key difference between my speculation and yours. My speculation is built upon circumstantial evidence. It's built upon evidence that isn't quite enough to function fully as evidence, but definitely raises red flags. What's more, I have loads of circumstantial evidence from multiple different topics and sources. If you asked me - legally speaking - if it is a sure-win to try and take legal actions against the election, the DNC etc, yes, I would advise you that it's not exactly a sure-win. If you asked me if there was cause to investigate however, or cause to be suspicious? Absolutely. The law and common sense do not always align. But while I use circumstantial evidence (in 20 different cases all surrounding the same shady individuals) to speculate, you use zero evidence whatsoever to speculate about Assange. See the difference? See how I let circumstantial evidence point me in the right direction and get me questioning things? See how you just spin in a circle and start walking around with a blindfold tied around your eyes?

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment. Let me frame the question a different way " what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ? Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know. The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations. That's you. That's how crazy you sound. I'm not sure I understand your analogy Are you saying Assange is the person alerting the real estate agent about the USA? Is the USA suppose to be the pedophile? Can you not just answer the question simply " what do you think motivates Assange in his view of the USA " ? ... You are both failing to understand the analogy, and you are instead insisting to me that it is far better if I needlessly speculate without any evidence whatsoever about what Assange's motivations may be. Some people were dropped on their heads as children, then there's you. Dude your head must've been mistaken for a football and thrown to the ground during an enthusiastic touchdown celebration.

This seems like a rather reasonable assessment. The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton. But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political institutions think This election was bought. There is no debate on this anymore. And to potentially add icing on the cake, wikileaks claims to have even more damning info coming. I recently saw an article interviewing Kim Dotcom back in May 2015 where Kim said Julian Assange was going to be Clinton's worst nightmare during the 2016 election. Realize that May 2015 is long before things like the email scandal came to light with the general public. Why would Kim Dotcom needlessly bluff on behalf of another person/organization regarding an issue that was not yet widespread? We have every reason to believe Wikileaks when they claim the worst is yet to come. But LK you cannot say with absolute certainty " the election was bought " ....this is your opinion. There are things about this election we can say with certainty but thats not one of them Also why do you still think Julian Assange is an objective observer when it comes to the USA? Let me frame the question a different way " what is Julian Assange's reasons or motives around the USA " ? This is not, as once again you stand in blatant denial of evidence in front of you if it stands opposite to your own stances. And this: Imagine you want to buy a home in a nice neighborhood. It comes to your attention that the other prospective buyer is a pedophile and a sex offender. Your heart goes out to both the Real Estate Agent and the neighborhood, because whether the sex offender does any further crimes or no, there's already damage the moment he moves in in that investments and property values will drop, nevermind the horrors that would befall the neighborhood if he still partakes in criminal activity. You decide to inform the real estate agent of this and show her the police report about the other buyer, not so much in your own self-interest, but because you feel that she has a right to know. The Real Estate Agent then becomes highly suspicious and paranoid and asks "what are your motivations in showing me this? Why do you not want him to live in this neighborhood? Is there something you're not telling me...!?" The Real Estate Agent then - off of her wild suspicions alone and completely devoid of evidence - determines it's best to sell the home to the pedophile and not to you, out of fear that there's more to your story and your motivations. That's you. That's how crazy you sound.

Hilarious. Snowden actually commented and stated that if Russia were responsible, the US government would know and it wouldn't be "speculation," suggesting (big surprise) Russia isn't behind this. Trump believing the very media rigged in Hillary's favor is priceless though.

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton. But irrespective of the favoritism shown towards Clinton from some in the DNC, Hilary still won the popular vote amongst Democrat supporters I'm not sure why this is ignored, the members of the DNC didnt tell or force Democrats to vote a certain way....we can see from the Trump victory if the political message resonates with people it doesnt matter what the established political institutions think 1) I believe there are two seperate studies showing that from a purely mathematical, statistical standpoint, the odds of the margin-of-error with exit polls being exceeded this frequently, ALWAYS in states that lack a paper trail and ALWAYS to the favor of Clinton rather than a mix of both, are stupidly, stupidly low. It wreaks of fraud. 2) The DNC is confirmed to have basically acted as an "editor in chief" of sorts for news sources like TIME, CNN, MSNBC and several others. The DNC simultaneously conspired ways to help the Clinton camp receive more funding than what's legally acceptable. All this means that the negatives of the Clinton campaign (for example that she was almost indicted) were downplayed while the campaign was constantly presented as powerful. People like to fancy themselves impervious to influence from the media, but any stats or data will tell you that media sways a significant portion of people. 3) The election is still under investigation and legal action from various different states. This is not a one-off for the state of California or Rhode Island for example. No, all across the country you can find ongoing investigations/litigation based on questionable election practices. California saw a steady pattern of votes after official reports and tallies slowly closing the gap between Bernie and Clinton, though this was not reported on, and hell, in the case of the Nevada caucus, we have clear footage of how ridiculous that got. 4) This study suggests all the corruption and bias cost Bernie Sanders up to 184 delegates. Go grab 184 delegates off of Clinton's total, then put them onto Bernie's, see what happens. Which brings us to the next point... 5) Superdelegates overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, often supressing the election results themselves. Go rewatch the roll call footage when Clinton got the nomination. Every time a state tells you it's delegate totals, google for example "Alaska 2016 Democratic Primary." Google will show you how many of those delegates are from the people. Any excess named on the floor are superdelegates. Regularly, the superdelegates turn ties into wins for Hillary, losses for Hillary into ties, and perhaps the most damning state results of all, Michigan voted for Bernie, but once Superdelegates are factored in, Clinton wins Michigan by a WIDE margin, far larger than Bernie's actual victory margin. How can these superdelegates claim to represent the people when they consistently go against the actual voters? Without the superdelegate system, Clinton's campaign begins to crumble. This election was bought. There is no debate on this anymore. And to potentially add icing on the cake, wikileaks claims to have even more damning info coming. I recently saw an article interviewing Kim Dotcom back in May 2015 where Kim said Julian Assange was going to be Clinton's worst nightmare during the 2016 election. Realize that May 2015 is long before things like the email scandal came to light with the general public. Why would Kim Dotcom needlessly bluff on behalf of another person/organization regarding an issue that was not yet widespread? We have every reason to believe Wikileaks when they claim the worst is yet to come.

He's not a troll, everyone.

I mean wtf man. At least we get THIS GEM RIGHT HERE.

Because that would be stupid and self-destructive. First, because it's too late in the process to get on the ballot in a critical mass of states. Second, because it would sabotage their policy goals and, consequently, career. We tend to get caught up in the personalities, but there are rather huge policy differences between the major candidates. Anybody who cares about tax rates, economic opportunity, immigration, environmental policy, education, energy, etc., would just end up undermining whoever of Trump or Clinton is closer to their views, and hand the election to the one who they like least. But this in of itself perpetuates the same exact problem that's touching on most of the world's problems today: "too big to fail." It creates a dependency on these terribly loathed candidates that prevents us from ever acting out against them, which affords ridiculous levels of control and lee-way to them, which just results in more problems.

Though it leaves many more questions. I consider my senses for people pretty sharp, and Bernie has never looked comfortable endorsing Hillary, and yet he's doing it. There are reasons one might do it, but we simply have no idea what was going through his head the past ~2 weeks or so. Doesn't matter now, really, but I can't shake the thought that he's planning something, but that whatever his game is, I have my doubts it'll even pay off at this point. Anyways, apparently people are already staging a walk-out. It'll be interesting to hear the crowd when Hillary speaks, not to mention Wikileaks sounds like they've got serious dirt on her.

Hillary officially the nominee vs. Trump. Anyone know any good suicide methods?

When our own government refuses to keep our politicians honest, we have to outsource it to the Russians. Foreigners - doing the jobs Americans won't do. In Soviet Russia, government cares about YOU!

But no one is denying this wasnt an issue and there was bias towards Clinton from some members of the DNC Thats why Debbie Wasserman resigned. But to suggest the global media houses, and thats what CNN is, are complicate in some dishonesty against Sanders is surly going too far ? Unless there is real evidence ? Bruce not one thread ago you were praising Donna Brazile as the new DNC chair to be, and you can't figure out how someone working with CNN going to replace the old corrupt chair is questionable? You haven't seen this or this or the one where TIME asks them to review an article before publishing? You've never heard the Clintons are huge donors to CNN? Ignorance is a choice.

Guard Dog, remember that time (those times) I said Bruce argues in bad faith, is incapable of conceding his initial views, doesn't actually know or pay attention to any of the facts beyond a face-value level, does not actually read/process the posts with opposing views and only "debates" to gain feel-good points where he can feel like his judgements are correct and his morals are good? I'd be the last person to call you an idiot for even bothering with him, just figured I should remind that this would not be the first time someone called Bruce out on the exact stuff you just said. (different words and interpretations, same problem)

Who are you guys voting for? Psychopath or Sociopath?

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4umz96/we_are_closing_rsandersforpresident/ Stuff like that is amazing to me. Like this attitude...what will it accomplish? The fact of the matter is that look, even if you give Bernie every benefit of the doubt and wish to respect his wishes and follow through with Hillary, we have actual evidence that multiple bodies within the DNC and the Clinton campaign have little to no respect for the American people and for voters that go against their wishes. Closing a subreddit that allows for discussion against Bernie's wishes does not calm people or make the situation improve, it just agitates them even more, especially since yes, there HAS been evidence of censorship in other corners of the internet, so even if you're sincere that the goal is not censorship, again good luck getting people to believe you.

If anything, our elections are now taking note from Game of Thrones for this year: -They got rid of all the likeable characters and kept all the jerks -Some characters have ridiculous wardrobes, like Trump and Margaery. -People are chanting "Shame! Shame!" -Everyone is hoping Bernie Sanders isn't really gone, just like Jon Snow -Amidst all of the politics, we forget the impending threat of Climate Change (the White Walkers) I could go on. Cmon USA, get some original writers.

It's a joke. Like I'm sorry if I'm getting spammy in this thread, but this entire thing is a giant joke. I guess I need to start editing one post in particular to save these clips cause wtf these awkward cringeworthy moments where they fail to acknowledge the audience just keep coming. EDIT: I knew the inflections of that guy's speech patterns sounded familiar. EDIT 2: Ladies and gentlemen, democracy at it's finest. EDIT 3: Thanks Grandma, I knew you had our backs. (I can link to a vid with swearing right? here's your warning of some bad grown-up words)

I hate to take joy in the unhappiness at the Democratic convention, but you can't help but feel it's just desserts for the way they acted about the "chaotic" Republican convention. Politics is politics, but it's absolutely remarkable to see the out and animosity in there. The protests aren't just on the outside of those doors. If you want to watch the Democratic convention, they stream it here live. Pattern thusfar is just if someone says let's elect Hillary then they get boo'ed, and all the speakers - Hillary and Bernie supporters - are pretty self-absorbed. Personally I just wanna see Bernie speak, Hillary speak, and perhaps a couple reactions to names implicated in the emails. And of course, I pray something actually comes of all the corruption.