Wikileaks releases Podesta's emails

[Starbuck1975]

Again I think that's your take on their article, which is far more leveled than selective. I previously linked a longer post I wrote on how "honesty" works and would recommend reading it again. Centrists by design promise some of everything to all people. Obama did this, but as mentioned it's understandable why you aren't angry about it. He said one thing to progressives, and another to the general electorate. So why your flip flop on Clinton doing the same?

Sander is different in that he is rather more the idealist; it just so happens that the time for his ideal had come, and will again in the future the way the country and human civilization in general is headed.

Btw I edited the post you replied to.

I have a more personal perspective on the Clintons as I was on active duty during Bill's presidency and was overseas for most of his administration. You gain a different and more intimate window into politics and presidents when you serve as their blunt instrument. It is similarly why I am critical of W, but more forgiving of his father and Reagan.

I am sure Facebook employees have a much different perspective of Zuckerberg as their CEO than those of us only exposed to his public persona. Same idea.

 

[agent00f]

From my side, you are confusing conservative with GOP. I am a somewhere in the South Park conservative to libertarian spectrum Don't deny it and have an obvious bias. I abandoned the GOP after W's first term, although I flirted with McCain until he chose Palin as his running mate.

I also accept it will draw a response. Some, like you, do so respectfully and engage in a thoughtful manner. Others, not so much.

I think this election hit upon the fact that a majority of the GOP was never really what you mean by the term conservative, or at least it never stack ranked well in their list of priorities. I mean, in the past they paid lip service to "principles" because it was more publicly palatable than what's now accepted after Trump kicked that rock right over---and all of sudden you have evangelicals excusing the worst moral behavior, or questioning if a judge's parents are too mexican for him to judge trump and so on.

Libertarian small gov ideals I think linger in the US because we were a frontier country much longer than the rest of the first world, where people dissatisfied with their socioeconomically situation can simply move on to greener pastures, but that's a matter of time as people are inevitably forced to deal with the consequences of capitalism.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

She doesn't need to do much of anything other than order federal authorities to stay out of the way, like Obama. Legalization will move to the national level when Congress can pretend it's their idea. They've already de facto legalized state level mmj by de-funding federal enforcement.

 

[Sunburn74]

It's rather evident Obama is no worse of an opportunist who tells progressives one thing when he acts the very definition of centrist. Just because he'll met you halfway doesn't mean he's not selling someone else out.
.

You're somehow shocked that at the end of the day, there is a difference between theory and practice?

This is true of all politicians. They want to deliver position x but due a number of governing forces and restrictions they get pulled closer to position y. Even dictators face this issue.

 

[agent00f]

You're somehow shocked that at the end of the day, there is a difference between theory and practice?

This is true of all politicians. They want to deliver position x but due a number of governing forces and restrictions they get pulled closer to position y. Even dictators face this issue.

If you'll notice, when Obama campaigned he told progressives what they wanted to hear, and told centrists what they wanted to hear. Realistically he was only ever going to satisfy one of those two groups. He (and Bill) is just a lot more talented of an orator to pull it off compared to Hillary.

 

[Ackmed]

Defend what exactly? Try to be as specific as possible about what it is that is in these emails that you have deemed indefensible. Please provide quotes and links to such emails.

The emails are out there and not hard to find, try google or any news site that doesn't lean far left.

I would consider this indefensible, when talking about the San Bernardino shootings Podesta was talking about it in an email saying; "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter." Because he wanted a white guy shooting a muslim, not the other way around. I don't think that can be defended, but perhaps you and others do. I am sure you and others have heard of this, but either don't want to acknoldege it or don't think its bad. Which speaks for itself if true.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ite-man-named-as-killer-in-2015-massacre.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-article-past-podesta-wikileaks-reveals.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eed-on-own-to-take-foreign-lobbyist-cash.html

Too lazy to type everything out, and that is just a few. And to be honest it's hard not to see what has been released. There are so many things in the emails from the Hillary camp that look terrible, it's sad people will defend them. Believing it is a different story. They haven't refuted it that I have seen, so for now it's all believable. Then you have CNN (HEAVILY) Clinton bias, just as Fox is towards Trump claiming that it is illegal to have and read the emails; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE CNN sure believed wikileaks before when it fit their own narrative, now all the sudden they don't because it doesn't fit their agenda. So yeah, what I said in my original post is true. Some pretty indefensible things done and said, and some people ignore or defend it. The same can be said for Trump, people will defend him or his camp over idiotic and indefensible things as well. It's just funny the hypocrisy that some have here, say something bad about Clinton and they lose their minds trying to insult, discredit, and otherwise defend her and her camp. Pretty damn sad in my mind. Yeah it took me a bit to get back, I don't live on these forums.

 

[ivwshane]

It actually is hard looking this up since even a basic search of your claim brings up 30 right wing websites all pushing the same narrative.

So how about you post a link to the actual email itself? Or you can spend the next two days being lazy and posting more nonsense about why posting to the actual email is too hard and not worth your time.

The emails are out there and not hard to find, try google or any news site that doesn't lean far left.

I would consider this indefensible, when talking about the San Bernardino shootings Podesta was talking about it in an email saying; "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter." Because he wanted a white guy shooting a muslim, not the other way around. I don't think that can be defended, but perhaps you and others do. I am sure you and others have heard of this, but either don't want to acknoldege it or don't think its bad. Which speaks for itself if true.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ite-man-named-as-killer-in-2015-massacre.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-article-past-podesta-wikileaks-reveals.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eed-on-own-to-take-foreign-lobbyist-cash.html

Too lazy to type everything out, and that is just a few. And to be honest it's hard not to see what has been released. There are so many things in the emails from the Hillary camp that look terrible, it's sad people will defend them. Believing it is a different story. They haven't refuted it that I have seen, so for now it's all believable. Then you have CNN (HEAVILY) Clinton bias, just as Fox is towards Trump claiming that it is illegal to have and read the emails; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE CNN sure believed wikileaks before when it fit their own narrative, now all the sudden they don't because it doesn't fit their agenda. So yeah, what I said in my original post is true. Some pretty indefensible things done and said, and some people ignore or defend it. The same can be said for Trump, people will defend him or his camp over idiotic and indefensible things as well. It's just funny the hypocrisy that some have here, say something bad about Clinton and they lose their minds trying to insult, discredit, and otherwise defend her and her camp. Pretty damn sad in my mind. Yeah it took me a bit to get back, I don't live on these forums.

 

[agent00f]

The emails are out there and not hard to find, try google or any news site that doesn't lean far left.

I would consider this indefensible, when talking about the San Bernardino shootings Podesta was talking about it in an email saying; "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter." Because he wanted a white guy shooting a muslim, not the other way around. I don't think that can be defended, but perhaps you and others do. I am sure you and others have heard of this, but either don't want to acknoldege it or don't think its bad. Which speaks for itself if true.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ite-man-named-as-killer-in-2015-massacre.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-article-past-podesta-wikileaks-reveals.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eed-on-own-to-take-foreign-lobbyist-cash.html

Too lazy to type everything out, and that is just a few. And to be honest it's hard not to see what has been released. There are so many things in the emails from the Hillary camp that look terrible, it's sad people will defend them. Believing it is a different story. They haven't refuted it that I have seen, so for now it's all believable. Then you have CNN (HEAVILY) Clinton bias, just as Fox is towards Trump claiming that it is illegal to have and read the emails; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE CNN sure believed wikileaks before when it fit their own narrative, now all the sudden they don't because it doesn't fit their agenda. So yeah, what I said in my original post is true. Some pretty indefensible things done and said, and some people ignore or defend it. The same can be said for Trump, people will defend him or his camp over idiotic and indefensible things as well. It's just funny the hypocrisy that some have here, say something bad about Clinton and they lose their minds trying to insult, discredit, and otherwise defend her and her camp. Pretty damn sad in my mind. Yeah it took me a bit to get back, I don't live on these forums.

Did you just say that Fox is biased for Trump and then just use them as your source to prove something against Clinton? Is looking to catch things like this something you're aiming to improve at?

 

[Ackmed]

It actually is hard looking this up since even a basic search of your claim brings up 30 right wing websites all pushing the same narrative.

So how about you post a link to the actual email itself? Or you can spend the next two days being lazy and posting more nonsense about why posting to the actual email is too hard and not worth your time.

You can click the link, or do a simple search. It's not that hard, I found it in a few seconds with a picture of the email. The link I left also has a video you can watch. It's not that hard. You may want to ask yourself, why CNN and other "left" sites aren't carrying it. Or you can just look at the actual email from wikileaks. But don't admit that what he said was bad like I claimed, or defend it, just dance around it. Which is my bet on what you and others will do.

http://www.infowars.com/wikileaks-e...shed-san-bernardino-terrorist-had-been-white/

 

[ivwshane]

You can click the link, or do a simple search. It's not that hard, I found it in a few seconds with a picture of the email. The link I left also has a video you can watch. It's not that hard. You may want to ask yourself, why CNN and other "left" sites aren't carrying it. Or you can just look at the actual email from wikileaks. But don't admit that what he said was bad like I claimed, or defend it, just dance around it. Which is my bet on what you and others will do.

http://www.infowars.com/wikileaks-e...shed-san-bernardino-terrorist-had-been-white/

Nope! I will not give your right wing websites any chance of receiving ad revenue from my click. You can link directly to the WikiLeaks email if you like.

 

[pauldun170]

The emails are out there and not hard to find, try google or any news site that doesn't lean far left.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ite-man-named-as-killer-in-2015-massacre.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-article-past-podesta-wikileaks-reveals.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eed-on-own-to-take-foreign-lobbyist-cash.html

thank you for supplying details.
For others, these are the source emails
Source emails

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/14998


Take note the Fox news reporting on the first email
FoxNews headline: "WikiLeaks: Podesta lamented that a Muslim, not a white man, named as killer in 2015 massacre"

Karen Finney forwarding a message from Matt Ortega, who emailed her about tweet from Christopher Hayes: "NBC News now reporting a US citizen named Sayeed Farouk believed to be one of the people involved in the shooting."

Podesta's response: "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter."

Question for the crowd is
1. What was Podesta trying to convey?
2. What did Foxnews do to shape this conversation with its readers?

 

[nageov3t]

if people are going to expect staffers' private emails to be made public, they should probably start accepting the fact that staffers talk and speculate just like everyone else when they're off the record.

 

[Jhhnn]

I love this one from Ackmed's third link-

Top Hillary Clinton aides in April 2015 decided to accept money raised by lobbyists representing foreign interests despite the potential political fallout and without telling Clinton, according to newly leaked emails.

Those lobbyists represent a lot of different people & interests, not just foreign govts. They bundle contributions. Every check has the donor's name right on it. That's not corrupt.

Compare that with Paul Manafort who lobbied on the behalf of a foreign govt & didn't even register as their agent. Compare that to a presidential candidate who won't reveal his tax returns so we can evaluate his involvement with offshore banks. They're actually a bigger problem than our own banks because we can't regulate them...

 

[Jhhnn]

.

 

[agent00f]

You can click the link, or do a simple search. It's not that hard, I found it in a few seconds with a picture of the email. The link I left also has a video you can watch. It's not that hard. You may want to ask yourself, why CNN and other "left" sites aren't carrying it. Or you can just look at the actual email from wikileaks. But don't admit that what he said was bad like I claimed, or defend it, just dance around it. Which is my bet on what you and others will do.

http://www.infowars.com/wikileaks-e...shed-san-bernardino-terrorist-had-been-white/

Just a heads up that linking to conspiracy sites (eg fake moon landing) to prove whatever point you might have is not a smart move.

 

[blankslate]

Move along. The democratic Establishment along with their "liberal" media cohorts will ensure that no one really pays attention to Hillary's tunk-tastic-ness isn't great that as bad as she is... the republican base was dumb enough to nominate Trump?

At least the SCotUS will be relatively sane.


___________________

 

[crashtech]

 

[DrDoug]

Aside from the fact that Wikileaks has become little more than a Russian propaganda puppet/outlet, the beauty of that cartoon is that Trump so thoughtlessly made that ugly umbrella that Hillary is holding.

Quite the 'gift' from him, eh?

 

[crashtech]

It's just a funny cartoon, which will be made even funnier by the comments of apologists.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

This "T&C Network Solutions" story is looking pretty interesting, Dem associates inventing claims of pedophilia and acceptance of Russian money against Assange.

 

[Jhhnn]

Aside from the fact that Wikileaks has become little more than a Russian propaganda puppet/outlet, the beauty of that cartoon is that Trump so thoughtlessly made that ugly umbrella that Hillary is holding.

Quite the 'gift' from him, eh?

The Podesta emails aren't rain, they're virga. It looks like it's raining from a distance but that's just an illusion. No umbrella required.

 

[Ackmed]

Nope! I will not give your right wing websites any chance of receiving ad revenue from my click. You can link directly to the WikiLeaks email if you like.

But you will click left wing sites? See the hypocrisy I'm talking about, or are you going to deny and ignore that too. Do you think there is a reason CNN didn't cover it? I mean they did blatantly lie and claim only the media could look at the emails, the rest of us would be criminals.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500

Direct link to the email with the comments he made. To back up my original comment that you and several people challenged me on. Go ahead and defend him, or agree with me. I would bet you're going to dance around it. There really is no defense for what he said.

I find it funny and hypocritical that certain people don't want to acknowledge the emails, and instead want to blame the source. When wikileaks provided documents before CNN and others had no problem with them, now suddenly when it puts Hillary in a bad light they attack them. Hypocrisy again. That graphic is a pretty good representation of what is going on. People should be glad to see the terrible things being said and done behind closed doors. I'd love it if we say the others sides dirty laundry as well. Calling the leaked emails an illusion as if nothing bad didn't happen or they aren't real is just pure ignorance and turning a blind eye. Which is very sad for the people doing it. And they think they're right.

 

[fskimospy]

But you will click left wing sites? See the hypocrisy I'm talking about, or are you going to deny and ignore that too. Do you think there is a reason CNN didn't cover it? I mean they did blatantly lie and claim only the media could look at the emails, the rest of us would be criminals.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500

Direct link to the email with the comments he made. To back up my original comment that you and several people challenged me on. Go ahead and defend him, or agree with me. I would bet you're going to dance around it. There really is no defense for what he said.

I find it funny and hypocritical that certain people don't want to acknowledge the emails, and instead want to blame the source. When wikileaks provided documents before CNN and others had no problem with them, now suddenly when it puts Hillary in a bad light they attack them. Hypocrisy again. That graphic is a pretty good representation of what is going on. People should be glad to see the terrible things being said and done behind closed doors. I'd love it if we say the others sides dirty laundry as well. Calling the leaked emails an illusion as if nothing bad didn't happen or they aren't real is just pure ignorance and turning a blind eye. Which is very sad for the people doing it. And they think they're right.

Meh, seems like a kind of crack that I or tons of other people would make on here. I know I've said far worse in emails or texts in my life and I bet you probably have too. The whole idea of pouring over private communications for statements to get outraged about is a silly idea.

Lawrence Lessig, someone who was actually insulted by name in those emails said the same thing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/larry-lessig-has-a-very-good-attitude.html

I’m a big believer in leaks for the public interest. That’s why I support Snowden, and why I believe the President should pardon him. But I can’t for the life of me see the public good in a leak like this — at least one that reveals no crime or violation of any important public policy.

We all deserve privacy. The burdens of public service are insane enough without the perpetual threat that every thought shared with a friend becomes Twitter fodder.

Neera has only ever served in the public (and public interest) sector. Her work has always and only been devoted to advancing her vision of the public good. It is not right that she should bear the burden of this sort of breach.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

But you will click left wing sites? See the hypocrisy I'm talking about, or are you going to deny and ignore that too. Do you think there is a reason CNN didn't cover it? I mean they did blatantly lie and claim only the media could look at the emails, the rest of us would be criminals.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500

Direct link to the email with the comments he made. To back up my original comment that you and several people challenged me on. Go ahead and defend him, or agree with me. I would bet you're going to dance around it. There really is no defense for what he said.

I find it funny and hypocritical that certain people don't want to acknowledge the emails, and instead want to blame the source. When wikileaks provided documents before CNN and others had no problem with them, now suddenly when it puts Hillary in a bad light they attack them. Hypocrisy again. That graphic is a pretty good representation of what is going on. People should be glad to see the terrible things being said and done behind closed doors. I'd love it if we say the others sides dirty laundry as well. Calling the leaked emails an illusion as if nothing bad didn't happen or they aren't real is just pure ignorance and turning a blind eye. Which is very sad for the people doing it. And they think they're right.

1st has it been verified
2nd I thought you guys were against Political Correctness
3rd what the hell is wrong with that email?
4th would you please point out what is so terrible in that email for me?

 

[ivwshane]

Lol I don't click on extreme left wing websites either. Of course anything to the left of what you read I'm sure you'd consider to be extreme left wing. Which is why I asked for a direct link to the email. I'm not how that's attacking the source but you've never been a rational person.

Now regarding the email; I cannot defend or condemn the email as I really can't tell what his point was. Of course you and your truther sites some how know exactly what he meant so it's easy for you to condemn them however I'm positive that if this were something trump said you'd have found a different interpretation.

So, so far you are 0 for 3 bub.

But you will click left wing sites? See the hypocrisy I'm talking about, or are you going to deny and ignore that too. Do you think there is a reason CNN didn't cover it? I mean they did blatantly lie and claim only the media could look at the emails, the rest of us would be criminals.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500

Direct link to the email with the comments he made. To back up my original comment that you and several people challenged me on. Go ahead and defend him, or agree with me. I would bet you're going to dance around it. There really is no defense for what he said.

I find it funny and hypocritical that certain people don't want to acknowledge the emails, and instead want to blame the source. When wikileaks provided documents before CNN and others had no problem with them, now suddenly when it puts Hillary in a bad light they attack them. Hypocrisy again. That graphic is a pretty good representation of what is going on. People should be glad to see the terrible things being said and done behind closed doors. I'd love it if we say the others sides dirty laundry as well. Calling the leaked emails an illusion as if nothing bad didn't happen or they aren't real is just pure ignorance and turning a blind eye. Which is very sad for the people doing it. And they think they're right.