Discussion in 'People' started by Aerianne, Nov 8, 2016.
Hillary Clinton would have lost the election without the WikiLeaks.
Being a sexual predator isn't a crime, although some feminists would like it to be. (If it were a crime Bill 'blowjob' Clinton would be in jail)
Deleting government emails is a crime (since 2009).
Do you see the difference?
In the Donald Trump thread, on October 14th, you said:
Could you please clarify your position, please. It seems a bit contradictory to defend the right of the free press to choose a political side in one thread, but condemn WikiLeaks for the same thing.
Also I'm a little bit sorry because I do hate when people dig up old posts to prove a point, but your comments above have stuck with me because I didn't really understand how you could defend the obvious influence the DNC had over the mainstream media this election. And in light of your comments regarding Wikileak's bias, I understand even less.
I couldn't find your post regarding this, but (please corrent me if I'm mistaken) I believe you al;so pointed out that there is a long history of political parties using the press for their own political gain and the press in turn favoring one candidate over the other.
How is WikiLeaks different, exactly?
what are you on about? what is your definition of sexual predator, because I consider it someone who makes nonconsensual advances which very definitely falls under the definition of sexual assault or rape, depending on the severity. And those are most definitely crimes.
you're just a troll, right? I just have no other explanation
Someone who uses his position of wealth or authority to bed someone who would normally say no.
Like Bill 'blowjob' Clinton did with Monica. Not a crime, just a bit nasty.
You might try to refute the post and not insult the poster ........ anyone you don't agree with you just insult, are you not capable of a reasoned response.
How many of my posts have you responded with an insult? It's getting to be a bit of a problem for you, why not add your definition? If it appears to differ from mine.
The ONLY reason I didn't "like" this is because I have run out of likes...
You are 100% right...and you are NOT the only one that finds the post you referred to as trolling.
Surely even Trump supporters would agree that being a sexual predator is a crime.
Damn, not fast enough, I see you removed the "feminazi" remark,
first of all, I'm not a feminazi, I quite frankly think such labels are idiotic, but I know it is easier to put people into boxes with these neat little insulting labels, rather than view them as a three dimensional human being with nuanced thoughts and opinions. I get it.
anyways, thanks for clarifying. Someone who uses their authority to lure someone into consensual sex is indeed not a crime, happens all the time.
Also, in response to your edited remarks ( I see you also recognized the idiocy of terms like feminazi, so that's wonderful) I am not picking on you, its nothing personal, I just generally don't agree with you and I find your views on women unsettling. but this isn't the thread to get into that.
I'm capable of reasoned response to an insulting poster ........... no need to lower myself to their level.
How is everyone so certain that the hackers were Putin's insiders? You do realize that the Clintons have amassed so many enemies that span much much further than Trump's cronies. I find it disgusting how the media uses its manipulation tactics to try to distort the story to make it sound like it's all Russia's fault the DNC hated Bernie Sanders. The real villains were the corrupt individuals who stacked the deck and forced a candidate down the throats of their voters. Heck, if I knew how to get away with it (alive), I too would have hacked and released the Podesta files, and I'd have done it all for free. I mean Podesta's email password was "p@ssword" all along FFS.
lets just assume it was the russian government that was behind the wikileaks and lets just assume that it was enough to sway the election.
so russia was doing its part to do what it thought was best for its own interest.
USA WOULD NEVERRRRRR MEDDLE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES ELECTIONS OR TRY TO GET THE LEADERS THAT ARE IN OUR BEST INTEREST ELECTED!
A sexual predator is someone who seeks out individuals and attempts to sexually abuse them, for example they use force to kiss them or grab their genitals.
Bill Clinton engaged in consensual oral sex with a willing adult. In addition he wasn't a candidate, so I don't know what your point is.
Also I don't know why you bring up emails that have already been thoroughly investigated and fully covered ad nausea by the media.
Assange tries to claim impartiality, then in that letter talks about his bias for the Obama administration for its dealings with Chelsea Manning.
If Russian hackers, or whoever it was, but most likely Russian hackers, hadn't supplied him with all those Clinton related emails...what would Wikileaks have reported over the last 12 months, how would they have gotten their brand in the headlines.
As if his organisation isn't subject to the same forces of supply and demand every other is
He is a hero to trump supporters in 2016, but it won't be long before he digs in and upsets even some good trump may try to do.
Assange is a slime bucket. Probably did Russia's work for them. not knowingly, but becuase he didn't have much else at the time and he didn't want his little project to fade into oblivion
You have a point in that the press is free to take sides about any issue.
I have no problem with Fox News existing, for example, I think they are a terrible source of information, but they have a right to exist.
Wikileaks on the other hand does not report news, they don't just write opinion articles or present arguments for or against certain issues.
They provide a service for the presentation of data illegally stolen from private and governmental sources. They invade privacy. In addition they don't vet this data, they dump it. They have no regard for private information such as phone numbers, social security numbers, etc. They take no actions to see if the data they dump may result in danger to anyone's person or any Western nation's national security, and they are willingly or unwillingly being manipulated by the Russians.
Also they exist above the law. They can't be sued for libel or slander as they exist in "hyperspace" only. So they are free to present any material at will. Some one can hack your medical records, your private email server, your private photo logs, driving record, bank account, anything...and Wikileaks can post that out to the net without fear of legal jeopardy.
There is no cable news network, no magazine or newspaper that can do that without legal ramifications.
Even if we disregard all of the above and assume that Wikileaks is just like any other news source and they can legally publish anything they want in regard to a political candidate. That doesn't make it right nor does that prevent me from criticizing them for doing it.
If Fox news gets hold of Podesta's emails and starts leaking them in the manner that Wikileaks did that doesn't mean they are right or ethical. It doesn't mean that I can't say that they are trying to influence the election. They are. And they are doing it in an underhanded way. Nothing wrong with me calling that to your attention. All I'm doing is saying, "Hey, look at what they are doing."
I am free to condemn them for that action, just as you are free to say Bill Maher is bias and only presenting one side of an issue.
It's called evidence and admission by the Russians.
I think Foghorn Leghorn should have been on the ballot this time. Better than what we had to choose from.
There was better than what we had to choose from. Well kind of...there are more than 2 parties. And there is a write in line.
Separate names with a comma.