Wikileaks releases Podesta's emails

[Fanatical Meat]

To be fair, despicable is a strong term. Maybe too strong for some to handle. I would have said disappointing

So that would explain it. You guys don't have a bat signal. You are a flock, simply migrating. Carrying any coconuts?

Lame, its really simple if there is something you find despicable just post it, its your opinion you're entitled to it.
I do have a big problem with all the vague talk this election like people are saying, really, really smart people are saying.
Post what you find despicable and maybe I'll agree or maybe not otherwise you are just spreading rumors.

 

[pauldun170]

Does ANYONE have direct links to emails that reflect poorly on Clinton?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Lame, its really simple if there is something you find despicable just post it, its your opinion you're entitled to it.
I do have a big problem with all the vague talk this election like people are saying, really, really smart people are saying.
Post what you find despicable and maybe I'll agree or maybe not otherwise you are just spreading rumors.

I don't care either way. I was simply observing that four people, then five,
then six all piled on in literally a 10 minute window all making the same point. I wouldn't say anything in the Podesta emails are despicable. More disappointing. Disappointing and sad, although perhaps vindicating for Sanders supporters.

 

[werepossum]

And no one is paying attention because no one cares.

At least you're being honest and admitting embracing the corruption.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't care either way. I was simply observing that four people, then five,
then six all piled on in literally a 10 minute window all making the same point. I wouldn't say anything in the Podesta emails are despicable. More disappointing. Disappointing and sad, although perhaps vindicating for Sanders supporters.

What did you find disappointing, specifically?

More people should ask for specifics. Frequently people on here say things that they have put literally zero thought into. When you get specifics it's a basis for discussion.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Exquisitely vague bullshit, just like the original accusation.

I preferred your original thought that I doubled down on bullshit. Why did you edit it?

 

[OrByte]

There is nothing despicable in those emails.

Its just a way to create false equivalency between Trumps mess and Hillary's "mess"

I have yet to see any real mess coming from Hillary's email though....

 

[Starbuck1975]

What did you find disappointing, specifically?

More people should ask for specifics. Frequently people on here say things that they have put literally zero thought into. When you get specifics it's a basis for discussion.

That is a fair question. I find it disappointing that the person who will be our next President is exactly who we thought she is, and had these emails seen the light of day a year ago, Sanders could have buried her with them.

Sure there is nothing nefarious in the emails. Nothing criminal. Nothing inspiring. Just another politician surrounded by surrogates more concerned with damage control than integrity, beholden to corporate and wall street interests with a sprinkling of potentially unethical collusion and inappropriate maneuvering...you know, the very things that actually did matter before the threat of a Trump presidency became the more urgent and pressing concern.

 

[Paratus]

That is a fair question. I find it disappointing that the person who will be our next President is exactly who we thought she is, and had these emails seen the light of day a year ago, Sanders could have buried her with them.

Sure there is nothing nefarious in the emails. Nothing criminal. Nothing inspiring. Just another politician surrounded by surrogates more concerned with damage control than integrity, beholden to corporate and wall street interests with a sprinkling of potentially unethical collusion and inappropriate maneuvering...you know, the very things that actually did matter before the threat of a Trump presidency became the more urgent and pressing concern.

It's pretty sad that some people will defend what is in these emails no matter what. Some of the things said and done are despicable. And without a doubt if these were about Trump and his crew the very same people would be all over it. Such hypocrisy on these boards are normal though.

2

 

[Starbuck1975]

2

Well played. Point Paratus.

 

[ivwshane]

You have four examples in rapid succession to your post.

Asking for examples of what he is talking about are examples of what he claims? Wow

 

[Starbuck1975]

Asking for examples of what he is talking about are examples of what he claims? Wow

He alluded to the partisan group think that permeates these forums depending on the news cycle, and I found irony that a few posters in rapid succession all immediately sought evidence, quotes, links...as if some of those requests were truly intellectually honest.

I will leave this here, as its a balanced article that covers the topic nicely:
http://nbcnews.to/2enuR6m

 

[Jhhnn]

That is a fair question. I find it disappointing that the person who will be our next President is exactly who we thought she is, and had these emails seen the light of day a year ago, Sanders could have buried her with them.

Sure there is nothing nefarious in the emails. Nothing criminal. Nothing inspiring. Just another politician surrounded by surrogates more concerned with damage control than integrity, beholden to corporate and wall street interests with a sprinkling of potentially unethical collusion and inappropriate maneuvering...you know, the very things that actually did matter before the threat of a Trump presidency became the more urgent and pressing concern.

So, nothing specific- just another slathering of innuendo. The reference to Bernie is just your way of stoking a different conspiracy theory. Explain how Bernie could have buried her with Podesta's emails, a giant nothing burger.

The irony of Repubs' predicament is quite amusing. They made the election all about character, integrity & trust, Spreading the FUD about Hilary in an attempt to tear her down & avoid substantive issues. And then... and then... they nominated Donald Trump.

Please pardon the schadenfreude. I can't help it. The Repub leadership richly deserves Trump & worse. They've been playing with fire for decades & now it just might burn their house down.

 

[fskimospy]

That is a fair question. I find it disappointing that the person who will be our next President is exactly who we thought she is, and had these emails seen the light of day a year ago, Sanders could have buried her with them.

Sure there is nothing nefarious in the emails. Nothing criminal. Nothing inspiring. Just another politician surrounded by surrogates more concerned with damage control than integrity, beholden to corporate and wall street interests with a sprinkling of potentially unethical collusion and inappropriate maneuvering...you know, the very things that actually did matter before the threat of a Trump presidency became the more urgent and pressing concern.

Thank you for answering. I have to say that I didn't see much in those emails that showed her as beholden to anyone, but such is life.

I sincerely doubt Sanders would have won regardless. The primary wasn't close.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So, nothing specific- just another slathering of innuendo. The reference to Bernie is just your way of stoking a different conspiracy theory. Explain how Bernie could have buried her with Podesta's emails, a giant nothing burger.

The irony of Repubs' predicament is quite amusing. They made the election all about character, integrity & trust, Spreading the FUD about Hilary in an attempt to tear her down & avoid substantive issues. And then... and then... they nominated Donald Trump.

Please pardon the schadenfreude. I can't help it. The Repub leadership richly deserves Trump & worse. They've been playing with fire for decades & now it just might burn their house down.

The Republicans deserve to have their house burnt down, no argument there. You seem unable to defend Clinton without raising the spectre of Trump. Don't think for a second her troubles are behind her once she takes the White House. If anything this is just the beginning. Call it Fud or schadenfreude or innuendo or conspiracy. I call it reality.

 

[Jhhnn]

He alluded to the partisan group think that permeates these forums depending on the news cycle, and I found irony that a few posters in rapid succession all immediately sought evidence, quotes, links...as if some of those requests were truly intellectually honest.

I will leave this here, as its a balanced article that covers the topic nicely:
http://nbcnews.to/2enuR6m

Mmmm... Now it's down to the "feels", huh? That's where it's always been for the Clinton haters. It's just how they feel & they can't really explain why. They "feel" that there's something in the Podesta email hack but they can't tell us what it is. They just know it must be bad, cuz Hillary. She's the Devil.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Thank you for answering. I have to say that I didn't see much in those emails that showed her as beholden to anyone, but such is life.

I sincerely doubt Sanders would have won regardless. The primary wasn't close.

Thank you in turn for responding with something of substance.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Mmmm... Now it's down to the "feels", huh? That's where it's always been for the Clinton haters. It's just how they feel & they can't really explain why. They "feel" that there's something in the Podesta email hack but they can't tell us what it is. They just know it must be bad, cuz Hillary. She's the Devil.

Preach it brother. Scream it from the mountain tops.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Please. The Clinton campaign has vowed to reschedule cannabis & basically to allow legalization at the State level. Unlike the Repub platform, the Dem platform calls for a pathway to legalization. Five states will likely join the legalized segment in November-

http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/these-states-expected-to-legalize-marijuana-next-month-news.24731.html?

Say what you want about Clinton but she sees the handwriting on the wall & obviously intends to heed it.

I was waiting for you to show up. Here's a post you made a few months ago:

Always with the negative attributions, huh?

Clinton is an early Boomer, like me. She understands that no matter how one feels about the WoD that cannabis never should have been part of that. Unlike other recreational drugs, cannabis is non-lethal & not much of a real player in the realms of public health & public safety.

She's been there as reality has unfolded, probably knows people from her younger days who've been tokers for 50 years. She's probably been to some of the same kind of hard drug related sad funerals I've attended, as well.

She knows that cannabis prohibition needs to be set aside for the good of the Country & the People. Cannabis use has gone on long enough & is sufficiently widespread that it's become part of our culture, top to bottom. We don't need the divisiveness of this particular bit of authority for its own sake nor the hypocrisy behind it.

So she privately says she opposes marijuana legalization, campaigns only on lowering it to a schedule II drug (which would still keep recreational possession/sale illegal), and ride on a "state's rights" note for probably the only time in her life, and you think she's really committed to its legalization? She realized that she is on the losing side as states ignore federal law, and is letting them do the dirty work for her. She doesn't give a shit about your pot, broski.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If Hillary's Wall Street speeches get release from a hack does that qualify to make Trump release his taxes?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

If Hillary's Wall Street speeches get release from a hack does that qualify to make Trump release his taxes?

I hope she brings that up for the third debate.

 

[Victorian Gray]

He alluded to the partisan group think that permeates these forums depending on the news cycle, and I found irony that a few posters in rapid succession all immediately sought evidence, quotes, links...as if some of those requests were truly intellectually honest.

The only irony I see relates to you talking about the intellectual honesty of others. I am still waiting for either of the two of you to provide some concrete examples of what 'disgusts' him or 'disappoints' you.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Republicans deserve to have their house burnt down, no argument there. You seem unable to defend Clinton without raising the spectre of Trump. Don't think for a second her troubles are behind her once she takes the White House. If anything this is just the beginning. Call it Fud or schadenfreude or innuendo or conspiracy. I call it reality.

The Repub leadership is astoundingly dishonest. No matter what wedge issue they're driving at the time it's really about trickle down economics, about the top down class warfare they been winning for decades. They know what they're doing to working people & that people have to be a little crazy to vote Republican so they try to keep 'em that way. And when more crazy was required, they just slathered it on, heedless of where it might go.

Trump is just a symptom of what they've done.

 

[agent00f]

I was waiting for you to show up. Here's a post you made a few months ago:



So she privately says she opposes marijuana legalization, campaigns only on lowering it to a schedule II drug (which would still keep recreational possession/sale illegal), and ride on a "state's rights" note for probably the only time in her life, and you think she's really committed to its legalization? She realized that she is on the losing side as states ignore federal law, and is letting them do the dirty work for her. She doesn't give a shit about your pot, broski.

There are generally two strains of politicians in the idealists and pragmatists. Centrists are the second type, and both obama and clinton subscribe to this. Their flexibility to voter demands instead of an absolute has both its benefits/downside, and amplifying one or the other reveals more so the bias of the writer than anything about politics.

He alluded to the partisan group think that permeates these forums depending on the news cycle, and I found irony that a few posters in rapid succession all immediately sought evidence, quotes, links...as if some of those requests were truly intellectually honest.

I will leave this here, as its a balanced article that covers the topic nicely:
http://nbcnews.to/2enuR6m

Their chorus is supposed to highlight the fact that you've got nothing, but feel compelled to stick to your guns anyway. This adherence to tradition, ie loyalty in face of all reality to the contrary, is a central tenet of conservatism.

 

[ivwshane]

The only irony I see relates to you talking about the intellectual honesty of others. I am still waiting for either of the two of you to provide some concrete examples of what 'disgusts' him or 'disappoints' you.

How dare you ask for examples of what he was talking about! The fact that you don't know what he is talking about is clearly an indication of how partisan you are and its not, in no way, shape or form an example of how partisan he is!!

/s