• 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.

Wikileaks' October Surprise

Sabrina said:
Call me crazy, but the mere fact that both Wikileaks and Russia are representing the words from an op-ed written by a Newsweek writer as "proof" of Clinton's "nefarious" involvement in Benghazi tends to make me think there's an agenda, and it ain't to the benefit of the US, no matter what Assange likes to spin.

If it can be proven they're misrepresenting one thing, why not every other thing in this so-called "October Surprise" data dump? Clearly they have no qualms about creative editing, so I can't understand why they think I should believe anything they post, period.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear the good news that Assange is dead and all the criminals who worked with him have been arrested and jailed with salt water and moldy bread to nourish them.
 
There really needs to be an investigation into Russian manipulation of the election. This is rather serious.
 
The Big Dog said:
You can't obviously because you are lying about what she said, of course. she said: YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION.

That was from yesterday's wikileak release.

Baffling that you misrepresented what the release actually said when there are actual non-sycophants around to call you on it
Click to expand...

Funny, in this discussion Trump surrogate Betsy McCaughey said, "As the wikileak's information showed on Friday, Hillary Clinton has two personas: the public persona and the private persona. Those are her own words."

Starts at around the 6:25 mark.

Is McCaughey lying as well? Is she misrepresenting the release because she is a Hillary sycophant? Or did a phrase simply get garbled and misquoted?
 
Minoosh said:
Funny, in this discussion Trump surrogate Betsy McCaughey said, "As the wikileak's information showed on Friday, Hillary Clinton has two personas: the public persona and the private persona. Those are her own words."

Starts at around the 6:25 mark.

Is McCaughey lying as well? Is she misrepresenting the release because she is a Hillary sycophant? Or did a phrase simply get garbled and misquoted?
Click to expand...

False dichotomy.

Here it was misrepresented
 
fuelair said:
I'm still waiting to hear the good news that Assange is dead and all the criminals who worked with him have been arrested and jailed with salt water and moldy bread to nourish them.
Click to expand...

Well, at least his noble aim of fathering children of every possible race without financially supporting any of them has been slowed down a bit.
 
The Big Dog said:
when did Wikileaks represent the words from an op-ed written by a Newsweek writer as "proof" of Clinton's "nefarious" involvement in Benghazi?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell Trump and Sputnik are responsible for the lie.

According to the Eichenwold piece:
The documents that WikiLeaks has unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the WikiLeaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, Sputnik turned it into a bogus news story saying the words came from Blumenthal, when in fact Blumenthal was emailing Eichenwold's piece to Podesta.

Trump then read Eichenwold's words at a rally, attributing them to Blumenthal. If WikiLinks did not make that connection, then Trump fell for the Russians' ploy, or was otherwise manipulated into believing it, or simply decided it was convenient to act like he believed it.

Yesterday he said the U.S. homicide rate was the highest in 45 years. Not even remotely true.

ETA: I don't know what's worse: Trump wildly misrepresenting reality on purpose, or because he really can't tell the difference.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
"Clinton Said Dodd-Frank Was Something That Needed To Pass “For Political Reasons.” “And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important. And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-

Nothing much jumped out at me, except for the above. The implication is that banking reform was done only to placate the stupid sheeple.
Click to expand...
To me that reads as Clinton saying that Congress felt pressured to do something quickly and Dodd-Frank - about which there'd been a "lot of complaining" - was what was done, however imperfect. The implication is that with more reflection something better might have been arrived at. This seems unexceptionable to me.

As I recall Clinton also said that banking reform might have been better handled had there been more openness from the banks about what they'd been doing, so she doesn't put all the blame on Congress, and certainly doesn't suggest that banking reform wasn't necessary.
 
The Big Dog said:
False dichotomy.

Here it was misrepresented
Click to expand...

I can't fathom what the motive would be to misrepresent it. The email says position, a Trump defender says persona, an ISF poster says personality. I don't see intent to deceive anywhere.

Once I unraveled what you were saying about WikiLeaks, I realized you were taking issue with the claim that WikiLeaks misrepresented an email. You were showing skepticism, which is all well and good, except that the truth (as far as I can tell) is that Russia lied and Trump used that lie to manipulate an audience. So: I get your point, but making it doesn't do Trump any favors.
 
Minoosh said:
As far as I can tell Trump and Sputnik are responsible for the lie.
Click to expand...
Sputnik for the lie (or mistake), Trump for believing it without question.

Trump then read Eichenwold's words at a rally, attributing them to Blumenthal. If WikiLinks did not make that connection, then Trump fell for the Russians' ploy, or was otherwise manipulated into believing it, or simply decided it was convenient to act like he believed it.
Click to expand...
Trump will believe what's convenient to believe. Somebody fed him that Sputnik story very quickly, which raises questions, but not terribly new ones.

Yesterday he said the U.S. homicide rate was the highest in 45 years. Not even remotely true.
Click to expand...
He's just spewing any old crap now. Trump's going to collapse in a frothing heap before the vote, with blood coming from his ears and his wherever, mark my words. (When I say "the vote" I mean Nov 28th, of course.)
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Once I unraveled what you were saying about WikiLeaks, I realized you were taking issue with the claim that WikiLeaks misrepresented an email. You were showing skepticism, which is all well and good, except that the truth (as far as I can tell) is that Russia lied and Trump used that lie to manipulate an audience. So: I get your point, but making it doesn't do Trump any favors.
Click to expand...
I think in theory WikiLeaks doesn't take a position on anything. It exists to set data free for the benefit of we the people yadda yadda. Not all at once though, for some reason.
 
CapelDodger said:
He's just spewing any old crap now. Trump's going to collapse in a frothing heap before the vote, with blood coming from his ears and his wherever, mark my words. (When I say "the vote" I mean Nov 28th, of course.)
Click to expand...

I think he's probably already had a few brain bleeds.
 
Trump's Nov 28th slip could well be down to neurological damage. We should look out for more signs - heaven forfend someone with brain damage be elected President of the United States, however crappy you might think the place is.
 
Minoosh said:
I can't fathom what the motive would be to misrepresent it. The email says position, a Trump defender says persona, an ISF poster says personality. I don't see intent to deceive anywhere.

Once I unraveled what you were saying about WikiLeaks, I realized you were taking issue with the claim that WikiLeaks misrepresented an email. You were showing skepticism, which is all well and good, except that the truth (as far as I can tell) is that Russia lied and Trump used that lie to manipulate an audience. So: I get your point, but making it doesn't do Trump any favors.
Click to expand...

The poster here misrepresented it.

Trump was not mentioned in the post to which I was replying. Russia was and you seem to have gone along with that talking point, despite the fact that it is wildly more complicated than that.

The claim against wikileaks appears to be false
 
CapelDodger said:
I think in theory WikiLeaks doesn't take a position on anything. It exists to set data free for the benefit of we the people yadda yadda. Not all at once though, for some reason.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to think about WikiLeaks. Just watched more Alex Jones than I cared to, trying to understand what Assange was saying.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't know what to think about WikiLeaks. Just watched more Alex Jones than I cared to, trying to understand what Assange was saying.
Click to expand...
Alex Jones? Taking one for the team there.

Assange is nothing without WikiLeaks, and it seems WikiLeaks has got nothing without the Russians. Even with them they've not got much.
 
The Big Dog said:
lolz

clinton fans have gone full truther
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Putin Ally and Russian MP Vladimir Zhirinovsky didn't say that Americans must vote for Trump if they want peace, and that voting for Hillary would result in "Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere"?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Are you claiming that Putin Ally and Russian MP Vladimir Zhirinovsky didn't say that Americans must vote for Trump if they want peace, and that voting for Hillary would result in "Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere"?
Click to expand...

Nope, I am chuckling that anyone would take it seriously.

Atom bombs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom