30
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

 
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 09:11 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

No Announcement????
A Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


I'm hearing that it's because Hillary has threatened a drone strike on the embassy....wish I were joking, but people are actually suggesting this.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 09:44 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Well, there wasn't any announcement today, a lot of people stayed up to breathlessly awaiting it only to be told, they would be revealing at least one document a week for the next 10 weeks.

Trump backers realize they’ve been played as WikiLeaks fails to deliver October surprise

In other news, Trump supporters shocked that a Australian shut-in accused of sexual assault is willing to play them like fiddles.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 09:47 am
@maporsche,
I don't think for one second Hillary Clinton threatened a drone strike on an Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
Blickers
 
  4  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 09:50 am
@maporsche,
They were setting it up before the thing that Assange would be in danger if he gave the "revelations", such as they were, (or were not), from the Ecuadorian Embassy's balcony. So they changed it to an electronic press conference from the inside of the Embassy.

In fairness, somebody was reportedly chased off from trying to get into the Ecuadorian Embassy some weeks ago, which the Right is claiming is from a Hillary Hit squad, (they still haven't given up saying that Hill & Bill had 20 people murdered on their way up in Arkansas). Why he would evenwant to give these supposed "revelations" from a balcony is beyond me. Maybe he thinks he's Evita Perón.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 09:58 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I have heard Bill has been spending time with an intern at the Embassy.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 11:08 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:


To which you, georgeob1, responded:
Quote:
Some might argue that with Hillary you don't need to make this **** up. The verified material is ample.


Your response to revellette, where she said she was concerned that the October Surprise will be Emails obtained and doctored by the Russians. Your response clearly implies that the Emails should be considered as true, because the very fact that they supposedly come from Hillary means they have to be bad news, so the reader can assume that if the Emails are bad, that's proof enough that Hillary actually wrote them. That strongly implies that the Russians automatically will be telling the truth about any Emails they gave to Assange.

My point is that it is impossible to believe that a person who lived through the Cold War can conceivably think that Russians would ever let intercepted communications from the American government be released undoctored, to give the Russians the advantage. Somehow, you have achieved that degree of gullibility.


You are doubling down on your own errors and are now, either the victim of your own tortured illogic, or are simply lieing.

I merely said that the adverse material on Hillary is already well known and ample. I don't know how you interpret the phrase , "some might argue that ...." except to suggest that there are many out there ho would readily believe...

I have and claimed to have no knowledge of what the Russians might have hacked from Hillary's insecure e mail server, and no illusions about what they may or may not do with it. I assume they will follow what they perceive to be in their self interest. However, neither you nor I really know what that is in this matter.

You have the beligerance to persist in all this but sadly appear not to have the intelligence to see the distorted and illogical conclusions you are making

snood
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 11:17 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

I have heard Bill has been spending time with an intern at the Embassy.

Where'd you hear that?
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 11:55 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
I don't think for one second Hillary Clinton threatened a drone strike on an Ecuadorian Embassy in London.


I haven't heard that rumor, I have heard of the rumor Hillary wondered if Assange could be hit with a drone strike. The rumor started by a discredited right wing site; "True Pundit".

Quote:
Wikileaks and some conservative outlets are running with a claim that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton openly speculated about targeting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with a drone strike. But the report in question comes from an anonymously-sourced article from “True Pundit,” a fringe conspiracy website that even conservatives have criticized.

On October 2, True Pundit posted an article claiming that during a meeting of “State’s top brass” in 2010 to discuss how to deal with Wikileaks, Clinton asked of Assange, “Can’t we just drone this guy?” The site only attributes the comment to anonymous “State Department sources. ”The fact-checking website Snopes looked into the True Pundit article and found their claim “unproven,” pointing out that the source of their purported Clinton quote was “a vague and anonymous reference that does not yield to verification.” (It’s also unclear why multiple sources with knowledge of this supposed incident that took place in a meeting of senior State Department staff would choose to leak them to a minor conspiracy blogger rather than a credible news outlet. )

RT, the international news network owned by the Russian government, picked up the True Pundit story. Wikileaks’ official Twitter account also promoted the story, as did Trump allies Alex Jones and Roger Stone. FoxNews.com cited the Wikileaks tweet in its report on Assange rescheduling the time of a proposed address this week.

True Pundit’s supposed scoop comes on the heels of months of laughable articles forwarding conspiracies about Clinton.

The site wrote that anonymous “NYPD sources” had told them that during the recent Commander-In-Chief Forum, Clinton was “sporting a mini earbud wired to receive stealth communications from her campaign handlers.” (That conspiracy was picked up by the Trump campaign, along with Alex Jones, the Drudge Report, and Fox’s Sean Hannity)

The site also promoted a YouTube video claiming to show Clinton “using hand signals to trigger Lester Holt” during the presidential debate. (This claim was held up by Fox News as an example of conspiracy theories that came out of the debate.)

True Pundit claimed that during the debate there was a “medical episode played off by Hillary Clinton’s frozen smile, shaking head and upper torso with her eyes closed” during which “a concerned Donald Trump can be seen mouthing the word ‘seizure’ to his family and campaign advisors.”

In August, True Pundit offered “an unprecedented reward of $1 Million (One Million Dollars US) for Clinton’s true medical records” and said Clinton was rumored “to be suffering from a plethora of medical ailments” including dementia, post-concussion syndrome, Parkinson’s Disease, a brain tumor, brain injury, and complex partial seizures.

Conservative blogger Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, no stranger to oddball conspiracy content, noted, “TruePundit may be a hoax website” (though he still devoted an article to promoting the claim about the Assange drone strike).

Heat Street, a conservative website run by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., also described the Assange drone story as a “conspiracy theory.”

Conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson of Alex Jones’ Infowars initially described the True Pundit story as “iffy,” but after Wikileaks posted it said, “thought this was a fake story, until Wikileaks tweeted it out.”


links at the source
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 11:57 am
@snood,
Not sure but I think Parodose meant it as satire.
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 12:03 pm
@revelette2,
Me too, a joke.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 12:04 pm
@georgeob1,
If you didn't mean to suggest since the subject matter is Hillary the Russians don't need to make stuff up so it is true, your entire statement which began all this is confusing and just inane.

The fact is Assange got his leaks from Russian hackers who are known to doctor their information before releasing it to the public for propaganda purposes. They have done since the cold war, with Putin as a former KGB agent, it is not a big leap to think any so called "October surprise" would have been doctored regardless of you thinking Hillary has plenty of stuff which would be harmful to her without making stuff up or more likely, just doctored.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 12:39 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Not sure but I think Parodose meant it as satire.

Hope so. that'd be all we need for ole Bill to start up with some young thing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 12:41 pm
@georgeob1,
Any of Hillary's email filtered through several hands is not trust worthy.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 01:12 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote georgeob1:
Quote:
You have the beligerance to persist in all this but sadly appear not to have the intelligence to see the distorted and illogical conclusions you are making

George, when it comes to the point that you dislike Hillary so much that you would actually argue that we might as well accept as truth supposedly bad revelations about her from Emails that the Russians seem to have hacked without bothering to check to see if the "revelations" were added by the Russians or not, you really have hit the point of irrationality. You hit that point several posts ago.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 01:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote cicerone:
Quote:
Any of Hillary's email filtered through several hands is not trust worthy.

Absolutely. For most of us, that goes without saying.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 01:15 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

parados wrote:

I have heard Bill has been spending time with an intern at the Embassy.

Where'd you hear that?

You know those Clintons; if they can't add someone to the list of those they murdered they have to add to some other list.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 01:46 pm
@revelette2,
Apparently you are a bit nervous about what may be released.

The obvious fact is none of us likely really knows the truth about what various hackers and pruveyors of hacked information might do with the materials they acquire. I suspect that if the material is such that their purposes (whatever they may be ) are accomplished without modifying the hacked material, they will release them as they are, precisely to avoid the possibility of being discredited afterwards. The State Department is slow-walking a number of FOIA requests for these materials, in defiance of the law and several court orders, and it is at least conceivable that this may be their purpose (but that is just speculation). Otherwise they may do as you say. The fact here is that none of us really knows the merit or lack thereof of material that hasn't yet been released and which none of us have yet seen.

Lacking any information about it, I have no opinion at all of its merits. Apparently your mind is already closed.
Blickers
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 01:56 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote georgeob1
Quote:
The fact here is that none of us really knows the merit or lack thereof of material that hasn't yet been released and which none of us have yet seen.

But if it's bad for Hillary, you advocate that we just accept it without finding out if it's true first.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 02:57 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The State Department is slow-walking a number of FOIA requests for these materials, in defiance of the law and several court orders, and it is at least conceivable that this may be their purpose

The State Department is following the law about checking with other agencies for possible classified information before releasing the materials. When laws conflict, which would you prefer, that they not bother to check to see if any of the material would harm national security or that they take a little more time?
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2016 02:58 pm
@Blickers,
Those are your words, not mine.

The record of these events as described variously by; Hillary herself, The State Department IG, the NSA reviewers and the FBI Director, etc. are inconsistent and contradictory in a number of points, so questions of veracity exist before any hackers are involved. You appear to be ignoring all that.

Let's suppose that Assange releases some alleged Hillary e mails that were not among those Hillary provided in printed paper form to the State Department. What shall we make of them? No direct comparison can be made because Hillary ordered the destruction of the electronic records in violation of existing law and Federal regulation. The State Department has already released some official e mails ( from the files of those in government who received them) which were not included among those she disclosed to the State Department. Thus we already know her disclosure was not complete (though whether that was done knowingly or accidentally we don't know).

I'll ask you, -- should such released alleged e mails be believed or discounted out of hand? I believe the right answer is that if they are important they should be investigated to determine the facts as well as possible. Unfortunately, in the present circumstances, and with the present administarion, that isn't likely. As a result, in the minds of many, Hillary will be suspected. I ask you, whose fault is that? I suspect it is the person who ordered the destruction of the electronic records in the first place, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Deception and lies breed, suspicion, confuson and more lies. What goes around comes around.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/29/2024 at 01:25:57