The US Election 2016, Part IX

[Longknife]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

 

Intent? (click on the "view original PDF" tab)

[Malcador]

Wouldn't say so. But we've got at least 2 US lawyers here.

[BruceVC]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

 

Intent? (click on the "view original PDF" tab)

Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks 

 

Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information

 

Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to  Reddit..its hearsay. It should not  be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ?

 

Anything released from Wikileaks that cant  be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider 

Edited November 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I went and checked the Soros thing.

 

http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

 

 

 

Geddit?

 

About the only credit I'd give you now is if you went down this route to provoke me into insulting you to get me banned.

 

So I'll be clear in insulting you here: go and ask Obsidian to send you on a professional development course in undoing binary thinking styles (that way when people like me show you some courtesy and humour as I have in the past, you don't just ignore them), and when everyone else in the room is bantering with each other and having polite debate's (kinda the way people do on this forum, even when they're poles apart politically) and your the only one with a crash helmet on your head, being asked to walk from one side of the room to the other - think about that impact on you face as the days and weeks go by, and try to relate it to your foot, the garden rake, and your mouth.

 

Chippy these forums are different to other forums you may have frequented

 

Moderators are allowed  and encouraged to share their opinions and often get into debates and this has nothing to do with Obsidian rules. Its a good thing, the Mods here dont insult people  and saying something like " people who support Brexit are racist " is not an uncommon view, many people have this misunderstanding

 

So in other words just because a Mod gets into a debate and has an opinion that doesnt mean they automatically right or there view is credible but it also doesn't mean we dont debate with them in a normal way or they have some agenda to get people banned 

 

Its not like that, I hope this makes sense

[BruceVC]

 

I do think that after Geroge Soros is done putting fluoride in the water and dumbing down the population in general, he will be targetting the gaming community specifically.  And once he has finished using Bioware as a guinnea pig, will move onto Obsidian.

 

what

 

Its true alum, the Hungarians have been trying to control the world's financial market for decades and implement a new social order .....EVERYONE know this. There machinations start with  polluting the world's water and end with control of the Obsidian forums  

[Guard Dog]

 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

 

Intent? (click on the "view original PDF" tab)

Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks 

 

Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information

 

Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to  Reddit..its hearsay. It should not  be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ?

 

Anything released from Wikileaks that cant  be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider 

 

Wikileaks is sending out THEIR e-mails to each other. They are not posting rumors they heard third hand. 

[Longknife]

 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

 

Intent? (click on the "view original PDF" tab)

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.

[Guard Dog]

LOL, Jay-Z & Beyonce had a free concert at a rally for Clinton apparently. Over 10,000 people showed up and most left after the performance and did not stick around to hear Clinton speak! 

 

She should have come out first. I just find that hilarious. 

 

Found the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3908378/Trump-blasts-Hillary-Jay-Z-Beyonce-concert.html

Edited November 6, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

 

Intent? (click on the "view original PDF" tab)

Immediately rejected, its Wikileaks 

 

Again I will repeat this point because some of you guys keep using Wikileaks as a credible and or authoritative source of information

 

Wikileaks is like a group of people gossiping, similar to  Reddit..its hearsay. It should not  be used a foundation of valid information. If there is no way to verify or proof check something from Wikileaks why would you concern yourself ?

 

Anything released from Wikileaks that cant  be corroborated from another source I cannot in good conscience read and or consider 

 

Wikileaks is sending out THEIR e-mails to each other. They are not posting rumors they heard third hand. 

 

Lets focus just on this argument, who is Wikileaks ?

 

Where is there HQ, who is there official spokesman, where do they get the actual emails they release , what are there structures throughout the world, how do we sue Wikileaks for defamation? My list of questions are many but if you could start with those questions that would be much appreciated

 

I can give you the answers to all other institutions in the world that are part of the election process  that would be reasonable , some I support and I some I support on some issues but they all at least credible in the legal sense. Like the NRA  or Clinton Foundation 

[BruceVC]

LOL, Jay-Z & Beyonce had a free concert at a rally for Clinton apparently. Over 10,000 people showed up and most left after the performance and did not stick around to hear Clinton speak! 

 

She should have come out first. I just find that hilarious. 

 

Found the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3908378/Trump-blasts-Hillary-Jay-Z-Beyonce-concert.html

There is huge support for Clinton from many famous celebrities and musicians especially over the 2-3 weeks around the whole efforts the various surrogates are putting into the final election

 

This whole Beyonce event was targeted at getting more African Americans to vote for Hillary, I'm not sure why people would listen to any celebrity when it comes to politics but apparently they do have influence 

 

But musicians openly supporting Hillary is fairly common

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/singers-miley-cyrus-katy-perry-campaign-hillary-clinton/story?id=42991480

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/10/25/adele-endorses-hillary-clinton-miami-concert

[ShadySands]

Bruce, sir, I'm afraid you've missed the point

[Elerond]

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws

 

When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda.

 

Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.  

[BruceVC]

Bruce, sir, I'm afraid you've missed the point

Oh, my bad.

 

What point have I missed? Is this around Wikileaks or celebrities supporting Clinton or something else? I make so many points and at times I am unclear about what point I may be missing

[BruceVC]

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws

 

When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda.

 

Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.  

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done

 

In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it 

[Guard Dog]

 

Bruce, sir, I'm afraid you've missed the point

Oh, my bad.

 

What point have I missed? Is this around Wikileaks or celebrities supporting Clinton or something else? I make so many points and at times I am unclear about what point I may be missing

 

 Not that Jay-Z & Beyonce were supporting Clinton. That's not big news. The funny part was after they did their sets Clinton came out to speak and the crowd left. THAT'S what's funny. The artists are there for Clinton, the crowd was just there for a free Jay Z & Beyonce concert.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

 

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws

 

When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda.

 

Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.  

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done

 

In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it 

 

I agree with you  and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Bruce, sir, I'm afraid you've missed the point

Oh, my bad.

 

What point have I missed? Is this around Wikileaks or celebrities supporting Clinton or something else? I make so many points and at times I am unclear about what point I may be missing

 

 Not that Jay-Z & Beyonce were supporting Clinton. That's not big news. The funny part was after they did their sets Clinton came out to speak and the crowd left. THAT'S what's funny. The artists are there for Clinton, the crowd was just there for a free Jay Z & Beyonce concert.

 

Okay, I see what you mean ..shame that must have been a  little embarrassing but for me fans in crowds at music concerts can be fickle creatures 

[Malcador]

"'I've never said what he said in my life!' Trump blasts Hillary for appearing onstage with Jay-Z after the rapper drops F-bombs and N-words during concert rally – and draws a larger crowd all by himself!" Mail titles, classic.

[Guard Dog]

I didn't know those two were married. I am totally ignorant on pop culture I guess.

[Guard Dog]

"'I've never said what he said in my life!' Trump blasts Hillary for appearing onstage with Jay-Z after the rapper drops F-bombs and N-words during concert rally – and draws a larger crowd all by himself!" Mail titles, classic.

 As soon as Trump has top selling iTunes and radio hit he can criticize Jay Z. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws

 

When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda.

 

Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.  

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done

 

In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it 

 

I agree with you  and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water.

 

Yes I agree. The reality is Im sure many of the emails were sent by people within the Clinton campaign. The issue I have is based on the fact Wikileaks is trying to undermine the entire US  election process. So this is about the principle as far as Wikileaks is concerned, its not about Trump or Clinton its about a foreign entity interfering in the view US  citizens have around the legitimacy of their own election

 

Thats my main criticism of Wikileaks 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Wikileaks is as it name suggest organization dedicated to leaking information. It isn't neutral, apolitical, centralized, principled, or following laws

 

When reading wikileaks leaks one should remember that those who leak information have agenda, political motivation and they don't necessary leak all the information, information in its full context, unedited information, verified information, and they often use information overflow to distract people seeing true nature of what they leaked and then they leakers usually highlight parts of leaked information that support their agenda. Meaning that they usually have political agenda that they want to achieve and they use distrust against governments, establishment, and traditional media as their weapons to give people information that they have picked and that fit their agenda.

 

Also it should be noted that there isn't just one party behind wikileaks but dozens after dozens and every leak usually comes from different source with different agenda behind it.  

Excellent assessment, I wish I could make points in this way. I try but sometimes I just cant articulate my view in the way you have done

 

In summary this is my view of Wikileaks, exactly how you have summarized it 

 

I agree with you  and Elrond there is an adgenda behind all this. And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts. However, that does not make any of that information untrue. And there is so much data the argument that the information lacks context just does not hold water.

 

Yes I agree. The reality is Im sure many of the emails were sent by people within the Clinton campaign. The issue I have is based on the fact Wikileaks is trying to undermine the entire US  election process. So this is about the principle as far as Wikileaks is concerned, its not about Trump or Clinton its about a foreign entity interfering in the view US  citizens have around the legitimacy of their own election

 

Thats my main criticism of Wikileaks 

 

Like I always say if you don't put skeletons in your closet you never have to worry about them getting out. Clinton is not known for conducting herself in an honest or ethical manner. And she has surrounded herself with like minded people.

 

Bruce, by no you must see Hillary Clinton is thoroughly dishonest and completely corrupted. The only thing she has going for her is she's not Donald Trump.

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Gudm2OUF4

 

 

 

Freedom of speech.

[Zoraptor]

 

And yes Wikileaks is showing the whole world private information that it's agents stole by hacking into private server's and e-mail accounts.

 

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.

 

However, that does not make any of that information untrue.

 

 

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.

[Meshugger]

Interesting video: https://twitter.com/VivaLaFreedom/status/795004230880870401

 

What does Hillary mean there?