@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
I did not vote Lash's post down. However, Lash characterized the link as giving the contents of Hillary's speeches, when in fact they only give what hackers into the DNC Email server CLAIM are the contents of Hillary's speeches, but which might very well have been altered by the hacker or whoever the hacker turned the Emails over to. The evidence appears to be that Russia was involved in this, so we can be sure that the Emails will contain changes to further Russia's foreign policy goal of installing Trump as President of the United States.
Since Lash mischaracterized her link, it is not surprising that someone voted her post down. That someone, or one of those someones, was not me.
If this is your mindset then how can you trust anything from any source? Unless you grant levity to a side you support?
It's like you would be admitting that both sides are corrupt. The establishment and the whistle blower are not trust worthy because both have an agenda.
I think Hillary banks on people feeling this way about wikileaks, so it automatically discredits any claims surfacing. It's the Russians, those pesky reds are always wanting their hands in our cookie jars.
For me your attitude is fine, admirable that you don't just bite into every hook. But you do have to admit when shady stuff constantly surfaces there must be some underline truth in the muck even if someone else is shoveling fake poo on top of the pile.
