Longknife

Nah you're good bro, it's just me and Volourn he hates.

Silver lining is that 2020 is basically a free win for the Democrat. ...So long as the DNC isn't stupid enough to shaft another Bernie Sanders and try to force an establishment politician on us again.

Pennsylvania is sinking. Clinton holds a 1.3% lead, Philedelphia has been counted, 80% votes counted. Will she hold...?

She can still win I think if she gets both Nevada and Michigan, but if that happens, she needs something else. Most other states, save for Pennsylvania and Minnesota, are all leaning Trump.

*highfive*! No one believed us. Most even said it was impossible. I wasn't brave enough to make that call, and I consider that a testament to just how powerful propaganda is. I had no idea who would win and honestly thought Clinton would. Even if my gut said the Trump support is larger than they think, it's very hard to make that call when you see limited evidence of it according to the mainstream media. Likewise I feel a lot of Trump supporters were "shamed" and thus afraid to announce their existence. People can still deny it to this day, but the fact of the matter is that the media was 100% propaganda this election season. Today it's clear that the only people the establishment has been fooling this whole time has been themselves. I do hope you two placed bets on this though. Oh for the love of everything ....pls shut the **** up about the media being biased Are you that stupid you dont realize that was one of the great lies and manipulations that people like you propagated. So no one actually trusted the media when they warned and warned you how problematic and inconsistent Trump, you guys just ignored it. Well done you now have Trump presidency ...whoopie for you You have been one of the great pawns that Trump pulled along like a bull with a ring in its nose Yes Bruce, clearly I'm wrong. That's why Trump is currently very close to winning and scaring the wits out of everyone. He has won, well done. The next 4 years and possibly longer are going to grim for everyone....and you must realize you contributed towards it Can you at least take responsibility for that?> Bruce, I am not responsible for not trusting the most two-faced politician in American history. There is no objective right or wrong with this choice, because while I would quickly concede Clinton has the better policies....we don't even know her god damned policies. We don't know what's a lie and what's politics. And for all Trump's faults, the glaring issue stands: Clinton should never have been viable as a candidate to begin with. That? That ticks people off, that's why you see Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Michigan all hesitating to support her. Clearly, this is a big deal for a lot of people. A lot of people would prefer that idiot over the establishment simply becoming more corrupt. This entire election has been the Democratic party attempting to blame it's own supporters for not "bending the knee." Look at today. This is where that attitude gets you. Your job as a candidate is not to arrogantly tell your base to "bend the knee," it's to convince them you care. She's never, ever done that. She's played politics every single day, and she and the establishment (the DNC, the media, the lobbyists and the government officials) hav no one to blame but themselves.

Good news folks, looks like Nevada switching blue.

*highfive*! No one believed us. Most even said it was impossible. I wasn't brave enough to make that call, and I consider that a testament to just how powerful propaganda is. I had no idea who would win and honestly thought Clinton would. Even if my gut said the Trump support is larger than they think, it's very hard to make that call when you see limited evidence of it according to the mainstream media. Likewise I feel a lot of Trump supporters were "shamed" and thus afraid to announce their existence. People can still deny it to this day, but the fact of the matter is that the media was 100% propaganda this election season. Today it's clear that the only people the establishment has been fooling this whole time has been themselves. I do hope you two placed bets on this though. Oh for the love of everything ....pls shut the **** up about the media being biased Are you that stupid you dont realize that was one of the great lies and manipulations that people like you propagated. So no one actually trusted the media when they warned and warned you how problematic and inconsistent Trump, you guys just ignored it. Well done you now have Trump presidency ...whoopie for you You have been one of the great pawns that Trump pulled along like a bull with a ring in its nose Yes Bruce, clearly I'm wrong. That's why Trump is currently very close to winning and scaring the wits out of everyone.

I've done a looooooot of thinking about this, and the way I'd summarize it...? "Too big to fail." Too big to fail is the problem that faces us this day and age. It affects businesses, it affects politicians, it affects everything. I feel Clinton was "too big to fail," and while I would debate she's the better candidate in regards to future elections (sets a precident for corruption and money driving politics), if you objectively review Clinton and Trump, yeah, no **** she's the better candidate. The issue with too big to fail is it's a license to be a ****. You can cross any line you want, screw up as much as your want and be corrupt as you want.....yet you do help the world and offer a net profit, thus "too big to fail." I think that at the end of the day, the "solution" (best solution? No idea, but the solution people have chosen) is that we need to move backwards before we can move forwards. We need to hurt the "too big to fail" for once before we can move forward again. That's my take on this anyways.

*highfive*! No one believed us. Most even said it was impossible. I wasn't brave enough to make that call, and I consider that a testament to just how powerful propaganda is. I had no idea who would win and honestly thought Clinton would. Even if my gut said the Trump support is larger than they think, it's very hard to make that call when you see limited evidence of it according to the mainstream media. Likewise I feel a lot of Trump supporters were "shamed" and thus afraid to announce their existence. People can still deny it to this day, but the fact of the matter is that the media was 100% propaganda this election season. Today it's clear that the only people the establishment has been fooling this whole time has been themselves. I do hope you two placed bets on this though.

Yep, Granny Captain Planet is gonna teach China that looting and polluting is not the way, and then we're all gonna plant a tree in January. You can go to bed and rest easy.

The unspoken truth is that the establishment is just as responsible for this outcome as Bernie bros. At the end of the day, no one is obligated to vote for a candidate. No, you're the candidate, you have to motivate people to vote for you, you have to convince them you have their best interests at heart. The problem is Clinton has zero integrity and seems to just adopt the most popular Senate/lobbyist position of the time, so people don't trust her, so sure enough nobody's voting today. But we could've had Bernie. Why don't we have Bernie? Is it because he polled poorly vs. Trump? No, infact Bernie vs. Trump would've been an absolute landslide. Is it because they wanted to honor the sanctity of the Democratic system and give the nomination to the candidate with the most votes? Everyone from the media to states without paper trails were stacking the deck in Clinton's favor. The reason we don't have Bernie is because the establishment hates him more than Trump. Maybe not more than Trump, but they dislike him enough they were willing to take this risk. They are just as responsible for this outcome as "Bernie Bros" are, so the idea that they get to sit there going "tsk tsk" like a teacher to a child...? That's the EXACT arrogance that blinded these dumb idiots to how probable Trump's victory actually was. 98.5% chance of Hillary winning, they said. I'm just as worried about Trump's issues as everyone else, but if there's one relief tonight, it's that thank god someone slapped the ever-living **** out of the establishment to get them to wake the **** up and read the writing on the wall for once instead of jerking each other off and insisting anyone not in the establishment will simply fall in line if manipulated enough.

Not to defend Trump, but I do think there's a difference. The way I'd describe it is Trump...? He bluffs. He's not qualified, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He cannot bluff constantly, cause of course he stumbles over his own two feet and contradicts himself and says factually wrong statements. Is it malicious though? Is he purposefully trying to mislead people? I don't get that sense, I think he's just in over his head and doing his best to deflect and BS the crowd so that it doesn't show. And sure enough when called out on his past lies, he doesn't defend them to the grave as a rule, but rather he distances himself from them and lies again, claiming he never said that. Why? Because he had time to inform himself and realize how wrong he was initially. There's no agenda behind any lie, it's just the desperate bluffing of a man that realizes he's in over his head. Clinton...? She's lying maliciously. She's telling outrageous lies with this attitude that says she seems to think the American people are stupid. It's a ****-eating grin in your face as you're bold-faced lied to to suit her own agenda and her own desires. Pretty sure that's why while Trump lies more and lies constantly, Clinton is seen as just as bad, if not worse. People perceive worse intentions behind her, not to mention I wanna point out BOTH candidates lie quite a bit, so I wouldn't glorify either as the defender of truth.

Looks like Michigan is leaning Trump. GEE WASN'T THERE A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE THAT HAD A HISTORICALLY AMAZING COMEBACK IN MICHIGAN TO BEAT CLINTON??? WASN'T THERE A CANDIDATE THAT SLAUGHTERED TRUMP IN HEAD-TO-HEAD POLLS???

Id be interested in seeing your work if you are willing to share. I'll send a picture of it as a PM when it is finished. See? Only the most powerful forum members get access to this. It's all rigged so the top 1% of forum members benefit.

There were a couple. Hillary won one and Trump the other. Whoever wins will give me a salt mine, 4 years of liberal market worship, and hopefully a crash. Well what I mean is voter turnout is perhaps one of the most important factors to any election. We're where we are because only 9% of Americans bothered voting for Trump and Hillary. A poll months ago stating who people were voting for is one thing, a poll today that asks not only who people want but who they actually bothered voting for (if at all) is another, especially given all the pussies grabbed and the corruption scandals leaked between then and now.

I'd be curious to see a poll of this forum as a small sample.

Some other interesting factors I've seen discussed are that Obama of course benefited greatly from the black vote and the millenial vote. Hillary cannot really expect the same. No one likes to admit it, but of course there's idiots out there who voted for Obama because he's black. People don't like to say it because it makes black voters sound dumb, but nah, ALL voters can be dumb, and the black vote is no exception. Some truly did vote because the candidate was black too and for no other reason. Now that reason is missing, so will they vote...? Millenials are likewise very tech savvy, and are far less likely to fall for the blatant propaganda that's been trying to pass itself as mainstream media simply because they can find the real news on the net whenever they please. If anything, the millenial vote is probably the most likely to be offended by Hillary. Another interesting point is that I've seen projections predicting Ohio will go to Trump. However, there's apparently one county in particular in Ohio that's absolutely pivotal as it houses a huge chunk of the population. Given that, I honestly think that makes it easier to rig that county, which I would absolutely expect of Hillary. And speaking of media propaganda, what effect will that have? Will angered voters cast their ballot for Trump in protest of the corruption? Will Trump voters buy into the media narrative and stay home believing it to be a lost cause? Will Clinton supporters go out in bulk because they feel more justified in their vote thanks to the media? My #1 lament looking at this election is that there's sooooooooo many factors that it doesn't let us figure out which factors were and weren't pivotal with absolute certainty. It's such a cluster**** of variables that even after the result, some questions will remain. That's aggrivating as hell for me cause I'm really curious to know which factors will prove most important today.

So you are suggesting that because the black people within that town of mine do not have to hear the N-word, they're infinitely better off? I'm suggesting that while racial profiling and provoking people into fights are pretty disgusting, at least they're not getting lynched. Progress! So apparently the forum software at my post and I'm too lazy to type that wall of text up again. TLDR: people aren't purposefully censoring racist speech as an end unto itself, they're censoring racist sentiment, of which racist speech is a symptom. Creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is only possible if you're unwilling to sanction bigotry in all but its most egregious forms, otherwise bigots will wisen up to the fact that open bigotry gets them punished and learn to hide it. I'm not clear on if we're on the same page or not (not sure I understood), but I will say this and try to rephrase my point thusly: I do not just see an issue of bigotry, I see an issue of hate, and hate can come from all kinds of people, both victims and aggressors. It's a part of human nature, whether we like to admit it or not. Great example: The video, if anyone wants a tl;dw, is a homeless woman who was protecting the Trump star after it was defaced. She has signs that you can possibly make out from the video, but more or less she criticizes black america for trusting democrats, saying they need to wake up and stop being idiots.(her words) This sparks aggression from people who perceive bigotry in this, and you can see the result. They're bullying a homeless woman, going through her belongings, tearing up her signs, and the woman (the big one) at the end get rather physical. A white guy even attempts to calm the crowd, and you can hear two members of the crowd dismiss his statement simply because he's white. "Hilariously," this video was initially uploaded by one of the bulliers, who has since deleted their youtube channel once they realized they weren't being championed as a hero, but rather frowned upon for stupidity. It was initially three vids and I had the pleasure of catching them on the original guy's channel, so if there's choppy jumps in this vid linked, that's why. My point, and the lesson I would take away from this video, is that addressing the issue is a balance. If you attempt to censor racist speech, unfortunately it would seem people turn into this: they feel justified in vigilante justice, much like my jailed friends and much like this crowd. You can inadvertently cause an opposite extreme where people feel it's okay to treat bigots hatefully. (in that vid I'm not even sure she's a bigot, but you get the idea) You might take the lesson that the uploader has learned his lesson via being shamed, all the negative commentary and the downvotes his videos got (or any harassment if that came), but I would highlight I know of no official apologies for this incident and again, for as awful as it was, no people should not shame him beyond telling him why he screwed up. However, something I should've touched on better is that I currently feel the USA is in a position in time where yes, we need to cool it on censoring hate speech. I would not make this same recommendation 60 years ago, because at that time, the hate speech would've been the majority, would feed upon itself and grow. Today? Today I'm afraid I know of several cases where bigotry is seen as a license to be an **** for the victim. Did you know the Hugh Mungus lady for example is currently asking for donations to help her cope with the "sexual harassment" she received from that guy and from others since then? She's defaming him daily even though he did nothing. That and cases like it will sadly continue unless we cool it and we go back to teaching people that yes, hate speech and bigotry happen, but you have to be able to face it. The world today is far too eager to cling to a victim mentality, but this just creates the EXACT same issue of hate with different circumstances. In the same exact fashion that Muslim countries flip their lid and can hardly control themselves if they see a naked woman whereas countries where nudity isn't frowned upon are much less likely to be set off by it, I think exposure to hate speech can be "healthy" as it teaches people to face it calmly and rationally. Lastly, I am a firm believer that bigotry is the result of ignorance and stupidity, and that if you wish to combat it in any way, you need to do that via discussion. I am a firm believer that discussion is one of the most powerful tools humanity has to solve problems, and if you truly believe racism and other forms of bigotry are wrong (they are), then you should be capable of showing it via discussion. Not every person will listen, but yes you can mitigate the problem and reduce it by allowing for discussion. We cannot do this if our solution as society is to shame these people rather than to try and teach them. There was once a time when me, being the fantastic retard I am, approached a transgender person to confess my own bigotry towards the transgender community. The jist of it is I saw a transgender operation as a desire to deny reality and escape from it, whereas my stance is that you must face it and acknowledge it to move forward. I do not think I would do myself any favors for example if I spent my days dreaming of having two legs, and instead I can accomplish alot by accepting who I am, even finding that I gain unique insights others don't have by doing so, and that itself holds value. For those reasons (alongside some of the first transgender people I met being psychos and narcissists) I was at odds with the transgender community, but didn't like feeling prejudice towards them. Felt wrong in some way or like I wasn't understanding a person that stands on the absolute opposite end of a spectrum from me, and I wanted to change that. It may sound like a stupid plan to simply confront a transgender person, say "hi I'm bigoted towards you lol wanna talk about it," but it actually worked out and we walked away with mutual respect for one another, and I do feel I've gained better understanding of the issue just from that. I do not want to live in a world where instead of my happy ending to my real experience, I was shouted down by a mob of people for even admitting transphobia, with people physically pushing me, harassing me over social media or attempting to have that bigotry affect my life functionally. I want to live in one where people do feel a level of disgust from bigotry, but recognize that only through tolerance and respect - even for bigots who may lack respect for others - is the only way forward and the only way to truly change bigotry.

So you are suggesting that because the black people within that town of mine do not have to hear the N-word, they're infinitely better off? No, they are still subjected to racist treatment, whether they say those words or not changes nothing. A friend of mine that still lives there had to go to the mayor himself because he was getting pulled over nonstop by cops due to racial profiling: he's 6'8" and black. The mayor had to basically tell the police department he was hands-off because he had been getting pulled over 9 times per month. Several other friends all got arrested because they were openly provoked by a guy spouting the N-word until they broke his jaw. The town was very quick to glance over evidence the guy was a known white surpremacist and multiple people stated he did indeed provoke the fight out of the blue (even walked up to them for no reason), yet my friends are the ones that did time. Yes, if they had thicker skin and if this word was heard regularly, perhaps it would not spark such emotion that they essentially get baited into an assault charge. That's not blaming the victims, that's reality. No, the town should not be so prejudice that they show clear bias towards the white supremacist, but if it's going to be that way, yes, it is in their best interest to act in such a way that keeps them out of trouble. Fight against the prejudice, but until that's taken care of, yes, be concious of your environment. It's difficult to be concious of said environment if half the town is hiding their prejudices, and while being aware of those prejudices is by no means a great feeling, it does prepare you better. I am not saying make it culturally acceptable or legal to spout hate speech, but I am saying that simply shaming people for saying such words unfortunately misses the point. It trains a mentality where people hide their racism instead of overtly showing it. About the only level of naivete in my arguments is that creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is a rather difficult-if-not-impossible goal to achieve, but to focus on simply censoring such words...? That's missing the point entirely. Quite frankly, do you ever make arguments? Any time I see you post, it's just a snarky one-liner about how people who don't agree with you are so wrong, but you never expand on your position. Do me a favor and come down from your high horse to enlighten me to my flaws.

See everyone, we need at least some PC. Imagine an America where people who think this; say it. ...Good? It allows the idiots to announce themselves so you know who to keep your distance from. Agree with your sarcastic remark completely. I've got a story of my own: in High School, I was in the AP classes. I didn't really have many friends in these classes because the way the town worked, the richer families all pushed for their kids to be in the AP classes, pushed them to befriend each other and pushed them to go for positions like Student Council, etc. I was in AP classes by teacher request, but apparently parents could request it and push for it aswell, and that meant the richer kids were always in them simply because their parents understood the value of such a thing. Sucked cause it meant I was amongst kids that had been forcefed to each other as friends since they were like 6, with limited others not being in the giant clique of a class. There were probably only 3-4 people per class that weren't in it. This will sound racist, but yes, typically African American communities in the USA are less educated, so obviously the percent of them within AP courses was quite low, simply because their parents rarely stressed for them to learn nor pushed for further success. Initially we had four total visiting AP classes, but by my senior year, only two black kids total were in AP classes because the other two just didn't care enough to continue and preferred easier courses. In my Calculus class, neither of those two remaining were present. More on that later... During Black History Month there was an assembly and a dance that was to be organized by the black students only instead of Student Council. This sparked a petition from some kids saying this was unjust, because why should unelected students get a free dance and assembly to organize as they see fit, all just because of race? They had other arguments such as what of our latino students, but you get the point. In principle I agreed with their sentiment. Mind you Student Council wasn't exactly qualified cause it was the same preppy crowd whose parents had taught them they could pool their votes just right to elect each other, but in principle, people should earn their qualifications, no? When I was approached to sign that petition, despite agreeing with what was on paper, I didn't sign. The people asking me to sign just gave me a bad vibe and rubbed me the wrong way. Can't describe it because they never said anything overtly racist or offensive. They never even came close to that and were pretty normal. I guess my only tip-off was why were they THAT passionate about this that they made a petition. After all, even if I agree in principle, the black kids might enjoy the chance and why rain on their parade...? Wasn't like the petition would accomplish anything anyways. After the assembly and the dance happened (which were infinitely more entertaining than anything Student Council ever did), I'll never forget a certain conversation that sparked in my Calculus class that had zero black students: "How was the dance?" "It was alright." "Yeah, it was ok, but what it really needed was some good ole-fashioned COUNTRY!" "Yeah, I didn't like the music, but you know they wouldn't play country because certain people would complain." "You mean 'the Nigers?'" "Ah yes...'the Nigers'..." I was like "LOLWTF???" Out of nowhere a huge chunk of my Calculus class was exposing itself as casually racist, and the teacher wasn't even batting an eye. I looked around to see if anyone looked as shocked as me, couldn't find anyone. None of those people had given me any indication in the past that they had any sort of racist tendencies, yet there I was. Suddenly had a much stronger opinion about the petition, suddenly my opinion of that town sunk even lower. Should also mention that the neighborhood I lived in had it's own racist nickname that was never openly stated, simply cause it had the most black residence. Everything north of the town's train tracks was considered "N____ville" by plenty of people in the rest of the town, and while that was a clear announcement the town had plenty of racists, I never expected I'd hear such remarks from people who otherwise weren't in any way overtly racist on a normal day. Any day of the week, I would prefer these idiots get a chance to announce themselves. Shaming someone from saying something racist does not solve the problem of racism, it masks it. Such a practice serves the interests of the town by hiding it's blemishes and bad sides to make it seem nicer, but it doesn't actually address the issue at it's core. In that same light, I've met people that were openly hostile about my disability. Had a bus driver here where I live now once...I get in on crutches during a time I was waiting on a new prosthetic, this guy waits for me to go aaaaaall the way to the back, then refuses to pull out into I come to the front to show him my bus pass, something I was told they shouldn't actually do since that isn't their job. I go forward, show it, and as I'm walking back he pulls out rather suddenly so that I lost balance and fell. He then yells to me to stop being dramatic while others gasp in shock. And yeah, I was actually hurt; hurt to walk for the next two weeks or so as I'd somehow "jammed" my hip in the fall. Nothing discriminatory was ever said, but the attitude...? I don't know why he's that way, but it was clear to me and my gut that he has something against the disabled. (which honestly is rare and kinda weird imo) Had he just said something hateful and said "get that idiot waste-of-a-human disabled guy to come up and show his pass," I think all that would've led to is more support from the other people on the bus as well as helped to avoid that situation entirely, and he STILL would've been punished by the bus station itself. Better, no? And for people sensitive about being called names...? Honestly, grow thicker skin. The idea that others should correct themselves is naive and denies evidence that bigotry has existed since the dawn of time, and it misses an opportunity for YOU to grow as a person by being able to tolerate such commentary without your day being ruined. The few times I've had someone try to get under my skin about my disability, I've laughed. It's so pathetic, it's so petty, and it's basically a way for them to announce their hate or jealousy (most cases involved a time someone was upset with a position I achieved or recognition I got) in one of the most tactless ways possible, openly inviting others to think less of them. It's like watching someone dig their own grave, so I mean it when I say I laugh. So long as time itself has existed, so has bigotry. Trying to censor it will not work, and as such, you do yourself a favor by growing thicker skin. Simple as that.

Gotta love a good game soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzozKEl_r7s

You guys know what today is? Today's the day we get to choose if we wanna die via a corrupt political machine provoking a nuclear war with Russia or via an idiot with a dumb haircut accidently hitting the nuclear launch button and accidently bombing ourselves.

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter Two things: 1) Nothing Zora said was subjective. He just laid out how the organization works. That's it. 2) You lack proof that Wikileaks is targeting the Democrats so much as Wikileaks may be targeting the biggest criminal. That's the issue, that's why no one buys your narrative. There's a very important difference between targeting someone due to personal bias and targeting someone because they've broken the law or done something wrong. When Nixon was thrown out, it was not because he was a Republican and the administration was targeting Republicans, but because Nixon legitimately broke the law. We lack proof that Wikileaks has an agenda against the Democrats for being Democrats or against any particular philosophy. Wikileaks itself has gone on record to say it has something against corruption and illegal activity, and thusfar their leaks do indeed match that claim. Given that we have 100% proof that Clinton and people within her campaign (Donna Brazile for example) have lied multiple times, and seeing as there's not one confirmed story of Wikileaks releasing bogus information, clearly evidence would suggest it's time to trust the latter group. Interestingly, Project Veritas' videos and Wikileaks inadvertedly confirm each other as true (forget exactly how, but information that came forward in one of the parts inadvertedly aligns perfectly with info from one of the wikileaks emails), as does Colin Powell when he simply came forward and stated his involvement in the leaks 100% happened and every email involving him is 100% legitimate. I am a registered Democrat, or was. At this point I'd like new parties. If I felt the media, Wikileaks or anyone else was unfairly targeting Democrats due to a difference in policy or a belief Democrats are idiots that deserve no respect or what-have-you, I would be up in arms. That's not happening here though. Wikileaks is not targeting Democrats, it's targeting CRIMINALS. And while few would deny the Republican party currently faces a sort of identity crisis and a whole wagon full of problems, if anyone's being unfairly represented or unfairly treated, it's them. The media is outrageously bias against Trump and Republicans at the moment (save for FOX news of course, who does the same to Democrats) that it feels like many carry the attitude that Republicans deserve no respect. That likewise disgusts me, so here I am up in arms about it and Clinton cannot rely on my vote this election. Okay lets keep this simple, thousands of emails of have released during the election that have negatively impacted the Democrats and they all basically about Clinton and DNC Please provide me with links and or emails released by Wikileaks that have negatively targeted Trump and his campaign , I'll give you time to research this but I want to see the evidence that Wikileaks has been doing this...just find me two examples? There should be many if Wikileaks is this objective organisation and dont suggest that there has been nothing untoward or controversial or possibly illegal about the Trump campaign and numerous emails that would have been sent by them? So in summary, I want to see evidence that suggests Wikileaks is not only targeting the Democrats in their " quest to stop corruption and criminal behavior " and this pertains to the last 8 months and the US election Bruce you are basically - without evidence - arguing that Trump must have illegal activity on the same level as Clinton, and yet Wikileaks refuses to release it because of bias. I cannot prove for you that Trump isn't involved in illegal activity because proving a negative is impossible, and that is exactly why burden of proof is on the accuser rather than the accused. The burden of proof would be on you and on others to prove Trump did something illegal. Rationally speaking however, while I would not be surprised to see evidence of Trump being a tax dodger or perhaps involved with something akin to sexual harassment or domestic violence, those are nothing compared to what Clinton has done. Those would be criminal cases involved in his personal life, and while horrible and while being things I would welcome proper punishment for, would NOT really be topical for his candidacy or his ability to act as president. It's completely understandable that a voter would be less concerned about Trump walking in on a supermodel who's naked than they would be about knowing that Hillary knowingly accepted money from a nation funding terrorism while supporting a war effort that resulted from said terrorism. One of those just makes you a terrible human being, the other threatens to affect EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN and cost thousands of people their lives. Likewise, based on what we do know...? If we attempt to approach the situation rationally and deduce if Trump could be responsible for equally awful/topical crimes...? Trump is not a politician. He lacks the influence neccesary to even achieve something as great as Hillary's little corrupt circle. She's the influential one with connections that has been involved in politics for decades, he's just some mediocre millionaire with weird hair. It would be difficult if not impossible for Trump to have any comparable sway over politicians, corporations or nations akin to Hillary Clinton. Likewise, Wikileaks has shown us clear evidence of media bias. The media provides a glowing view of Clinton and a terrible one of Trump. Despite this, the people still found out about all of the skeletons in her closet, even though the deck was heavily stacked in her favor. Why on earth should we believe that Trump somehow magically has as much power and influence as Hillary, is just as corrupt, and yet despite the fact that the deck is stacked against Trump, we don't have evidence of his corruption but we do have evidence of Hillary's corruption, despite the fact the media is actively protecting her?? That's absurd. You may state the evidence that the media is in her favor is unreliable evidence as that itself stems from Wikileaks, but again, why do the actions of parties involved inadvertedly support or even confirm the accuracy of wikileaks' evidence? Why would CNN fire Donna Brazile if their claims about her are entirely false? Why is Colin Powell confirming their accuracy while supporting Clinton as the candidate? It would seem that evidence is indeed reliable. You are basically - without evidence - claiming that Trump is somehow magically as corrupt and influential as Hillary Clinton is, and the fact that Wikileaks doesn't prove this is proof of their own bias. No Bruce, your train of thought is proof of your own bias. You do not read stories to help you cultivate opinions about candidates, you read stories to help you cultivate opinions about the stories, and that's precisely why you're bias. You don't change or revise your end result, you attempt to change the equation when you're not getting the result you want when using it.

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter Two things: 1) Nothing Zora said was subjective. He just laid out how the organization works. That's it. 2) You lack proof that Wikileaks is targeting the Democrats so much as Wikileaks may be targeting the biggest criminal. That's the issue, that's why no one buys your narrative. There's a very important difference between targeting someone due to personal bias and targeting someone because they've broken the law or done something wrong. When Nixon was thrown out, it was not because he was a Republican and the administration was targeting Republicans, but because Nixon legitimately broke the law. We lack proof that Wikileaks has an agenda against the Democrats for being Democrats or against any particular philosophy. Wikileaks itself has gone on record to say it has something against corruption and illegal activity, and thusfar their leaks do indeed match that claim. Given that we have 100% proof that Clinton and people within her campaign (Donna Brazile for example) have lied multiple times, and seeing as there's not one confirmed story of Wikileaks releasing bogus information, clearly evidence would suggest it's time to trust the latter group. Interestingly, Project Veritas' videos and Wikileaks inadvertedly confirm each other as true (forget exactly how, but information that came forward in one of the parts inadvertedly aligns perfectly with info from one of the wikileaks emails), as does Colin Powell when he simply came forward and stated his involvement in the leaks 100% happened and every email involving him is 100% legitimate. I am a registered Democrat, or was. At this point I'd like new parties. If I felt the media, Wikileaks or anyone else was unfairly targeting Democrats due to a difference in policy or a belief Democrats are idiots that deserve no respect or what-have-you, I would be up in arms. That's not happening here though. Wikileaks is not targeting Democrats, it's targeting CRIMINALS. And while few would deny the Republican party currently faces a sort of identity crisis and a whole wagon full of problems, if anyone's being unfairly represented or unfairly treated, it's them. The media is outrageously bias against Trump and Republicans at the moment (save for FOX news of course, who does the same to Democrats) that it feels like many carry the attitude that Republicans deserve no respect. That likewise disgusts me, so here I am up in arms about it and Clinton cannot rely on my vote this election.

If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ? There is, you're just too biased to accept that whenever people try to tell you what DKIM is, or the basic legal truth that if someone is refraining from outwardly denying something is true, then there's a highly probable implication it's true....OR Colin Powell's own testament that the emails are legit. But sure Bruce, keep those fingers in your ears and vote for the vagina because vagina.