• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Wikileaks DNC leak proves primary was rigged /DNC planned to use Sanders' religion ag

The Atheist said:
I gotta say; that is an ongoing indictment on the American people overall.

Too many of them are a couple of thousand years out in their thinking.
Click to expand...

I suppose what Marshall said is true after all. I will say this for Sanders: he has come as close as I have ever seen a serious candidate for president (in the US) to admitting to being an atheist without using the dreaded word itself. Most of them at least pretend to be religious. Sanders did not.

I remember reading this article about it in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-god_us_56a9123ee4b0f7179928c0dd

Reading between the lines, the article writer seems to be trying to spin it like he is "spiritual" but what I take from it is that he does not attend any church, temple or other organized religion. He is very likely an atheist but is careful not to call himself that.

“I think everyone believes in God in their own ways, “ said Sanders, who polls show is neck-and-neck with Hillary Clinton in Iowa and opening a large lead in New Hampshire. “To me, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.”

Sanders, a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, told the paper, “I think it is important that a sense of morality be part of our politics.”

Sanders identifies as both Jewish and secular. He said he’s not actively involved in any organized religion. If elected, Sanders would become the fourth president in U.S. history to claim no organized religious affiliation. He also would also be the first Jewish president.
Click to expand...
 
Julian Assange has repeatedly claimed that there are more emails to come, and to expect an October surprise. Incriminating emails involving donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign governments in exchange for influence and favors from Hillary Clinton while she was serving as Secretary of State.

I'm betting he does have a trove of emails he will be releasing in October, timed to have maximum effect on the election. I doubt they'll be any smoking guns in them, anymore than in the last batch.

What I think they'll contain is statements that will be vague enough to allow Clinton's enemies to make all kinds of accusations and feign outrage. Seemingly forgotten are earlier releases by Assange that showed Hillary Clinton working privately to convince the Saudi leaders (and also those of the United Arab Emirates) to crackdown on some of their citizens who were directly or indirectly donating funds to groups that were considered terrorist. Then complaining to colleagues that the Saudis and UAR didn't take it seriously enough.

Also overlooked in all this is, Assange's first interview on his TV show was with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah, a man who was then (and still may be) in hiding, actively sought by police. Assange was very cordial and friendly with Nasrallah and Nasrallah treated Assange like a comrade.

What are Assange's motives? No mystery, his friends say he is anti-Western democracy. Conservatives supportive of someone who is anti-West because they have a common enemy?

Scary!
 
NoahFence said:
See, this is the thing. These Emails only confirmed what I was thinking was pretty common knowledge. Clinton coronation, and some infighting about how it was that Sanders was even a force to be reckoned with.
Click to expand...
This.

Tony Stark said:
Odd, it seems that the people who care most about DWS being removed from the convention are Republican HDS sufferers. I know I don't give a ****.

Who wants to bet that Bernie Sanders is still going to say during his primetime speech that Donald Trump has to be stopped and to vote for Hillary?
Click to expand...
And he did. Though some of his followers are still deluded.
 
newyorkguy said:
Julian Assange has repeatedly claimed that there are more emails to come, and to expect an October surprise. Incriminating emails involving donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign governments in exchange for influence and favors from Hillary Clinton while she was serving as Secretary of State.
Click to expand...

Which reveals his agenda. If these emails exist, and are damaging enough to Clinton to cost her the election, the responsible thing to do would have been to release them well before now, so the Democrats had a chance to pick another candidate.
 
ZirconBlue said:
Which reveals his agenda. If these emails exist, and are damaging enough to Clinton to cost her the election, the responsible thing to do would have been to release them well before now, so the Democrats had a chance to pick another candidate.
Click to expand...

I think part of his agenda is trying to get the press not to add that he is on the lam to avoid a sexual assault trial in Sweden whenever they talk about him. This is not exactly a new claim either. I have a feeling that Assange is overhyping the upcoming reveals as he always does. Everything will deliver roughly the same level of outrage that this dump did. The DNC knows the hackers got their emails and what was sent and received it would be foolish of them to act as if they aren't going to come out.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
What is the other side of the story? Suppose Putin and/or Assange were completely objective. What's missing?
Click to expand...
So many things that I have to wonder how one could honestly ask a question like that.

A few that pop up: RNC communications, evidence that the plan was put into action, the rest of the emails instead of the cherry picked worst
 
quadraginta said:
Help me understand why one DNC staffer suggesting in an email that someone might ask Sanders about his religious beliefs is such a heinous transgression.

​
Even if someone had actually done it, which they didn't.

Since when has asking a political candidate about their religious beliefs been forbidden territory?

Conservatives generally don't even bother with the asking part. They prefer to tell people what a politician's religious beliefs are, especially if it is derogatory. Whether it's true or not. They do it all the time. Where did so many people develop the conviction that Obama is a Moslem, even though he goes to Christian churches and asserts quite persuasively that he is a Christian?

How come merely asking got to be such a transgression?

Is there more than one standard involved here?

It's okay for everyone else and their brother, on both sides of the aisle, to routinely ask pols about their faith, but when one DNC flack even mentions the possibility in a friggin' email of asking Bernie it's some sort of major ethical violation?
Click to expand...

I am legitimately upset no did put Sanders feet to the fire and we had our serious atheist candidate to representative my religious view.
 
wareyin said:
You, or anyone else, is fully capable of falling for the false narrative being promoted by Putin and Assange, yes. Hopefully, you are also capable of realizing that they are manipulating you. Sadly, not everyone is able to see how people without good intentions can present one side of a story in order to make people pick an outcome that is worse for themselves.
Click to expand...

Putin is not the problem. You are. You view it as a person's relationship must be weighed against the other parties and that somehow outcomes are what matter to everyone. My relationship to a party is for me to define,and in some cases, other parties do not matter. If an organization does not meet a certain ethical level, for many people it just simply doesn't matter what the other side does. It also doesn't matter if the only reason I find out is a third party wants to see bad things happen to the organization.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Putin is not the problem. You are. You view it as a person's relationship must be weighed against the other parties and that somehow outcomes are what matter to everyone. My relationship to a party is for me to define,and in some cases, other parties do not matter. If an organization does not meet a certain ethical level, for many people it just simply doesn't matter what the other side does. It also doesn't matter if the only reason I find out is a third party wants to see bad things happen to the organization.
Click to expand...
You honestly believe that morality exists in a vacuum, not as a scale? No one is perfect, we are all judged in relation to others, and outcomes certainly do matter!
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
You honestly believe that morality exists in a vacuum, not as a scale? No one is perfect, we are all judged in relation to others, and outcomes certainly do matter!
Click to expand...

I think it exists as a scale for some and as a vacuum for others, and every other philosophy out there. And I am fine assuming people are bright enough that for those who use a scale, they are perfectly capable of figuring out it is one sided. The others are perfectly capable of making their determination without it.


Also, I'm not a Democrat so I am pretty indifferent to what the dnc does as a private group.
 
ZirconBlue said:
Which reveals his agenda. If these emails exist, and are damaging enough to Clinton to cost her the election, the responsible thing to do would have been to release them well before now, so the Democrats had a chance to pick another candidate.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
BobTheCoward said:
I think it exists as a scale for some and as a vacuum for others, and every other philosophy out there. And I am fine assuming people are bright enough that for those who use a scale, they are perfectly capable of figuring out it is one sided. The others are perfectly capable of making their determination without it.


Also, I'm not a Democrat so I am pretty indifferent to what the dnc does as a private group.
Click to expand...
It goes right back to the obvious fact that outcomes matter. You are bothered that a DNC staffer privately floated the idea of asking Sanders about his religion? If enough people let that prevent them from voting for Clinton, the outcome will be the election of a man who has publically called for not allowing people into this country based solely on their religion. There is a scale, and outcomes do matter.
 
wareyin said:
It goes right back to the obvious fact that outcomes matter. You are bothered that a DNC staffer privately floated the idea of asking Sanders about his religion? If enough people let that prevent them from voting for Clinton, the outcome will be the election of a man who has publically called for not allowing people into this country based solely on their religion. There is a scale, and outcomes do matter.
Click to expand...

Do you think there is a significant amount of people that agree with your perception, but will read the email story, and come away thinking their party is the only one that is acting improperly? I cannot figure out why it seems you think people are not thinking like you do now.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Do you think there is a significant amount of people that agree with your perception, but will read the email story, and come away thinking their party is the only one that is acting improperly? I cannot figure out why it seems you think people are not thinking like you do now.
Click to expand...

Because I have to point out this information to people such as you, I assume that you are not thinking like I do now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom