Wikileaks releases Podesta's emails

[HamburgerBoy]

fwiw, in light of the continued dirt coming out on Trump, I take back the notion that Democrats were gambling with the future of the nation by wanting Trump to win the nomination. He was a perfect dupe and the Clinton campaign played things masterfully, probably knowing well ahead of time with 100% confidence that they could destroy him in the end. And unlike other smear campaigns (e.g. the swiftboaters), this one looks more or less valid. Still means I have no moral obligation to vote for her, but with no intended sarcasm I thank and congratulate her campaign for ending him.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Got it, Bill Clinton is running and Democrats voted Trump in as Republican candidate. Have I fallen down the rabbit hole and landed in bazzaro land?

 

[DrDoug]

Russia and Wikileaks need to work on their timing a bit...

Earlier today, @RT_com tweeted & pubbed a story on fresh @wikileaks Podesta emails dump before WL posted them to the site & tweeted a link. pic.twitter.com/nHb0GIq4Am

— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) October 13, 2016

Amateurs...

 

[OrByte]

Bump up because I'm genuinely curious what is coming out of the DNC emails?

anything bad? or is it all just "trumped" up conspiracy theory stuff?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Zzzz....Zzzz....Zzzz....

Wake me up when something interesting comes up.

 

[nageov3t]

it was interesting that they seemed to try getting Illinois to change their primary date to hurt Republicans, but ended up being unsuccessful in their efforts.

this isn't unprecedented, in 2008 IL rescheduled their primary to help Obama.

 

[hal2kilo]

Wow, what nothing burgers.
Inside baseball honest political discussions that show how smart they are. Yes, you identify your weaknesses and figure out what's the best way to deal with them.

Yawn!

 

[senseamp]

I looked over the emails, nothing about grabbing genitalia at all, just a bunch of boring campaign stuff. Maybe if Trump campaign was doing half the work, they would have known about his busy small hands.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The email correspondence from Podesta inquiring the use of executive privilege to classify and shield email correspondence between POTUS and Clinton is a YUGE nothingburger.

The Podesta emails are actually very insightful. They depict Clinton as exactly who many of us thought she was. Fortunately for her, orange groping Hitler is far worse than Grandma Nixon.

 

[senseamp]

The email correspondence from Podesta inquiring the use of executive privilege to classify and shield email correspondence between POTUS and Clinton is a YUGE nothingburger.

The Podesta emails are actually very insightful. They depict Clinton as exactly who many of us thought she was. Fortunately for her, orange groping Hitler is far worse than Grandma Nixon.

Communication between POTUS and Secretary of State is covered by executive privilege. Nothingburger indeed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bump up because I'm genuinely curious what is coming out of the DNC emails?

anything bad? or is it all just "trumped" up conspiracy theory stuff?

You guessed it... What Repubs have found is just another whatever to bullshit about.

 

[Jhhnn]

The email correspondence from Podesta inquiring the use of executive privilege to classify and shield email correspondence between POTUS and Clinton is a YUGE nothingburger.

The Podesta emails are actually very insightful. They depict Clinton as exactly who many of us thought she was. Fortunately for her, orange groping Hitler is far worse than Grandma Nixon.

Yes, the emails portray her as a savvy politician with a lot of smart people working on her behalf & a person true to their stated policy goals.

I don't understand how anybody who agrees with those policy goals would want somebody as POTUS who wasn't a savvy politician. Yeh, let's elect somebody who'll get nowhere, right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Communication between POTUS and Secretary of State is covered by executive privilege. Nothingburger indeed.

Podesta clearly expressed a concern of something getting exposed. Doubtful it was anything criminal. Probable there is something politically inconvenient that Sanders could have perhaps exploited in the primaries.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes, the emails portray her as a savvy politician with a lot of smart people working on her behalf & a person true to their stated policy goals.

I don't understand how anybody who agrees with those policy goals would want somebody as POTUS who wasn't a savvy politician. Yeh, let's elect somebody who'll get nowhere, right?

So saavy is the talking point now. Mad Men is about a bunch of saavy people too.

I am especially inspired by her inability to recall much of anything under oath. Does that mean Reagan gets a pass now, or is elusive accountability only a concern when the other side does it?

 

[agent00f]

So saavy is the talking point now. Mad Men is about a bunch of saavy people too.

I am especially inspired by her inability to recall much of anything under oath. Does that mean Reagan gets a pass now, or is elusive accountability only a concern when the other side does it?

You don't particularly strike me as a naive enough person to prefer "genuine" politicians.

 

[Jhhnn]

So saavy is the talking point now. Mad Men is about a bunch of saavy people too.

I am especially inspired by her inability to recall much of anything under oath. Does that mean Reagan gets a pass now, or is elusive accountability only a concern when the other side does it?

And... divert, of course.

If you agree with Clinton's stated policy goals & the Democratic platform It is highly likely that Clinton has what it takes to advance them to some degree or another. If she doesn't, it won't be for lack of trying. That's her history, her proven track record. She knows how to do it & who can get it done. If you don't agree, then she's your worst nightmare for the same reasons.

It's like anything else- if you want something done, particularly a set of complex tasks, give it to somebody who's experienced, who knows how to run the machinery.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You don't particularly strike me as a naive enough person to prefer "genuine" politicians.

True. What I do recognize is that the world seems to be trending towards a global crisis. Tensions are rising, there is a tremendous refugee humanitarian crisis, radical Islam is morphing into something we can't contain and both China and Russia are getting quite bold. We need a Lincoln or FDR or Truman or Eisenhower to lead us through it. Instead, we have two candidates on a race to the bottom. It's depressing.

 

[agent00f]

True. What I do recognize is that the world seems to be trending towards a global crisis. Tensions are rising, there is a tremendous refugee humanitarian crisis, radical Islam is morphing into something we can't contain and both China and Russia are getting quite bold. We need a Lincoln or FDR or Truman or Eisenhower to lead us through it. Instead, we have two candidates on a race to the bottom. It's depressing.

Just because your side is running a degenerate doesn't mean it's contagious. As you might've noticed on this forum, the rubber/glue argument isn't terribly effective.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Just because your side is running a degenerate doesn't mean it's contagious. As you might've noticed on this forum, the rubber/glue argument isn't terribly effective.

Just because Toyota had recall issue doesn't suddenly make Jeeps of higher quality. Trump is a degenerate. Clinton is a market tested manifestation of the status quo and dishonest. I find neither acceptable. One is tolerable.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And... divert, of course.

If you agree with Clinton's stated policy goals & the Democratic platform It is highly likely that Clinton has what it takes to advance them to some degree or another. If she doesn't, it won't be for lack of trying. That's her history, her proven track record. She knows how to do it & who can get it done. If you don't agree, then she's your worst nightmare for the same reasons.

It's like anything else- if you want something done, particularly a set of complex tasks, give it to somebody who's experienced, who knows how to run the machinery.

There hasn't been much discussion around policy goals. There has been considerable deflection towards body shaming beauty pageant winners and inapropriate and disturbing locker room banter. I suppose a congratulations are in order. The Democrats finally learned how to run a Republican style smear campaign.

Jerry Springer should moderate the next debate.

 

[Jhhnn]

True. What I do recognize is that the world seems to be trending towards a global crisis. Tensions are rising, there is a tremendous refugee humanitarian crisis, radical Islam is morphing into something we can't contain and both China and Russia are getting quite bold. We need a Lincoln or FDR or Truman or Eisenhower to lead us through it. Instead, we have two candidates on a race to the bottom. It's depressing.

Fear monger often?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Is WikiLeaks the gold standard for nonpartisan journalism?. Assange will not stand for bias in the media!

https://wikileaks.shop/#!bill+clinton+bimbo+poll-A107021158

 

[Starbuck1975]

Fear monger often?

Is anything I said untrue?

 

[agent00f]

Just because Toyota had recall issue doesn't suddenly make Jeeps of higher quality. Trump is a degenerate. Clinton is a market tested manifestation of the status quo and dishonest. I find neither acceptable. One is tolerable.

I'll assume you can think on and figure out how centrism works. Might need some help on honesty though: http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...-michelle-obama.2480583/page-14#post-38369383

Also, try not to make me look foollish by continuing to insist that the end is nigh. It's as dumb now as 8 years ago.

Is anything I said untrue?

It's your first world problems blown out of proportion.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Is anything I said untrue?

Is anything you said different from most of human history?