It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Wikileaks 7 Just Released

page: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Doubt it, but then again I have the same evidence that you do. Rampant speculation. But the right is "the boy who cried wolf" to me when it comes to Clinton scandals anyways. Either evidence or no dice.


I could care less what the Right says and don't disagree with the crywolf syndrome . However that does not mean that they couldn't get something right every once in a long while.

Its not rampant speculation its more common sense to see there is more to this.

In regards to the lefts laughable argument to provide evidence to demonstrate that there is more to this:

1. Would you be surprised that people with Money and Power can get away with things?

2. The FBI never said no crimes were committed, but rather that they couldn't show intent.

3. Do you also think that Al Capone was only a tax dodger or do you need evidence to conclude he may have been involved in more criminal activity?




Have you actually looked into answers for these questions?

Yes and like I said , you have to be naive to believe those excuses. Do you actually believe that Bill Clinton jumped on the Tarmac to talk about her grandkids?




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

I just wanted to give you and John a heads up on a story that might run as early as Monday.
...
Anyway, it is just one line well into the text of a long story, but I didn't want it to catch you both off guard.


From a Washington Post reporter to Eryn Sepp before a story ran.

/podesta-emails/emailid/9149

But no, there's no collusion between the media and the Hillary campaign.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
I could care less what the Right says and don't disagree with the crywolf syndrome . However that does not mean that they couldn't get something right every once in a long while.

You're right. That's why I said they need to present evidence and not the same rampant speculation they always provide. Clearly you DON'T think they are the boy who cried wolf if enough speculation can be presented to you by them to fuel your biases to overcome your suspicions towards them.


Its not rampant speculation its more common sense to see there is more to this.

Common sense isn't evidence of wrongdoing no matter how hard you try to make it.


In regards to the lefts laughable argument to provide evidence to demonstrate that there is more to this:

1. Would you be surprised that people with Money and Power can get away with things?

2. The FBI never said no crimes were committed, but rather that they couldn't show intent.

3. Do you also think that Al Capone was only a tax dodger or do you need evidence to conclude he may have been involved in more criminal activity?

Must you insult my intelligence like this? Just because I take a certain position on this matter doesn't mean that I am unaware of or give a pass to the various things you are asking about there. Sheesh. Not everything is so black and white and you are trying to make it so here.


Yes and like I said , you have to be naive to believe those excuses. Do you actually believe that Bill Clinton jumped on the Tarmac to talk about her grandkids?

Got any proof to say it was anything else besides your biases? I don't speculate without evidence as a matter of course. If there is no evidence I leave the question unanswered and default to the answer with the most supporting evidence. In other words the official story. If you want to change my mind you need to present evidence and stop trying to appeal to my "common sense". I don't work that way. I hate letting emotions sway my decisions and what you are advocating is literally a textbook example of doing just that. Because what else is common sense other than how you feel that the majority of the public feels on a certain matter?

I care about what can be proven in a court of law not what the court of public opinion thinks on a matter. It's a shame that your standards are so low that you do that though.
edit on 14-10-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: ketsuko

Ignore that grabbed p***y. There must be SOMETHING here on Hillary... just ignore all other things... focus all morality on Hillary ignore the loud booming racist bigot misogynist.... because Republicans are moral people and they care!



Nobody is ignoring loud booming racist bigot misogynist... This entire thread is about her.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The public is fickle. You bore them with a flood of the same controversy that opens zero new leads and they'll lose interest.


Yes.

There's almost complete lack of interest in the last few Assange "drops".

Only the die hard repeaters keep those threads going.

Of course, but you know the star brigade following Ketsuko doesn't care about that.


Oh, I have a fan club? I wasn't aware of that. I just say what I'm going to say.

I do remember the days of your professed libertarianism though. Perhaps we should call you what you are - a libertine.

You sound bitter.


Yes, he does sound bitter.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: ketsuko

So why not focus on that. It seems pretty obvious that Trump is controlled opposition. Nearly any republican could have won against Hilary.

With everything going on in the world Trump's campaign keeps the attention on themselves by saying thins like "most reasonable women report sexual harassment right away".

Seriously? That can't just be a moronic explanation for a Presidential campaign.

Why not turn the attention to Ww3 and our entangled mess with the Saudis? Or any other massive issue?


Right. And if Cruz would have, any other Republican could have won against Hillary. And if Rubio had won, any other Republican could have won against Hillary... Same ol same ol, every single election.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: carewemust

Which one is which?



Doesn't matter, which description do you prefer?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
It looks like more and more collusion:



The NYT (Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman) reached out this morning to tell us that they are aware of a meeting HRC had with Senator Warren at her house back in December. They plan to write imminently, so wanted everyone to be aware that this could pop soon.


Email 9416



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Trump supporters are such a great moral people who care deeply about all that is good and right. Champions of character and decency.



Yes, they're all about moral character.

Listening to radio - - interviewing students at a Christian college: "Jesus is about forgiveness, Trump said he was sorry, I forgive him".


I wonder how many times they've accepted one of Clinton's apologies? Like her apology for using a private email server?


Have you accepted Trump's apology for speaking vulgar?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

Uh huh. It's the left that is spinning the narrative.


Yes its the Left that is trying to make it go away its not the Right that is sticking their head in the sand on the emails and saying nobody cares in regards to the email scandal.




There is never any room for the consideration that MAYBE the right is blowing this completely out of proportion


Never said they didn't. However unlike Hillarys health issues, the right is correct about this one.




But I'M the one being naive here.

You tell me? Do you find it naive to not be concerned or suspicious of the following things around this case:

1. Bill Clinton secret impromptu meeting with the Attorney General on the tarmac during an active criminal investigation on his wife days before the FBI decides to not prosecute.

2. Deletion of records and asking how to manipulate records after being notified that they are being investigated.

3. Why did so many critical high ranking people involved in this case get immunity with nothing returned?

4. Why did the Gov't that is doing the investigation not get access to the deleted emails if we have infrastructure systems in place that captures everyone’s email including foreign country emails . as soon as they are sent?

If you can overlook any of the things I listed above or not see that there may be more to this than what has been disclosed , than yes you are likely naive or a willing to stick your head in the sand for you candidate.


Don't be silly. You know that saying "grab em by the p*ssy" 11 years ago is much more of an issue than any of that.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

I just wanted to give you and John a heads up on a story that might run as early as Monday.
...
Anyway, it is just one line well into the text of a long story, but I didn't want it to catch you both off guard.


From a Washington Post reporter to Eryn Sepp before a story ran.

/podesta-emails/emailid/9149

But no, there's no collusion between the media and the Hillary campaign.



The Washington Post has fallen so far since the days of Woodward & Bernstein.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Trump supporters are such a great moral people who care deeply about all that is good and right. Champions of character and decency.



Yes, they're all about moral character.

Listening to radio - - interviewing students at a Christian college: "Jesus is about forgiveness, Trump said he was sorry, I forgive him".


I wonder how many times they've accepted one of Clinton's apologies? Like her apology for using a private email server?


Have you accepted Trump's apology for speaking vulgar?


Yeah, but then he did it again the same day. Has Clinton leaked an email server again?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Double post see below
edit on 14-10-2016 by liammc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: interupt42
I could care less what the Right says and don't disagree with the crywolf syndrome . However that does not mean that they couldn't get something right every once in a long while.

You're right. That's why I said they need to present evidence and not the same rampant speculation they always provide. Clearly you DON'T think they are the boy who cried wolf if enough speculation can be presented to you by them to fuel your biases to overcome your suspicions towards them.


Its not rampant speculation its more common sense to see there is more to this.

Common sense isn't evidence of wrongdoing no matter how hard you try to make it.


In regards to the lefts laughable argument to provide evidence to demonstrate that there is more to this:

1. Would you be surprised that people with Money and Power can get away with things?

2. The FBI never said no crimes were committed, but rather that they couldn't show intent.

3. Do you also think that Al Capone was only a tax dodger or do you need evidence to conclude he may have been involved in more criminal activity?

Must you insult my intelligence like this? Just because I take a certain position on this matter doesn't mean that I am unaware of or give a pass to the various things you are asking about there. Sheesh. Not everything is so black and white and you are trying to make it so here.


Yes and like I said , you have to be naive to believe those excuses. Do you actually believe that Bill Clinton jumped on the Tarmac to talk about her grandkids?

Got any proof to say it was anything else besides your biases? I don't speculate without evidence as a matter of course. If there is no evidence I leave the question unanswered and default to the answer with the most supporting evidence. In other words the official story. If you want to change my mind you need to present evidence and stop trying to appeal to my "common sense". I don't work that way. I hate letting emotions sway my decisions and what you are advocating is literally a textbook example of doing just that. Because what else is common sense other than how you feel that the majority of the public feels on a certain matter?

I care about what can be proven in a court of law not what the court of public opinion thinks on a matter. It's a shame that your standards are so low that you do that though.
Funny, you bang on about not believing speculation and needing proof and evidence before you believe anything bad about hillary, yet lap up any speculation about Trump.

Double standards or what eh?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: liammc

Double standards or what eh?


It's called track record.

You're supposed to believe Trump speculation, because it's more often been true.


edit on 14-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: liammc

Double standards or what eh?


It's called track record.

You're supposed to believe Trump speculation, because it's more often been true.

Like him saying the N-word. It's probably true. On a more general level a lot of ignorant people have said that word though.
Clinton has a good track record?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I think this will be a bad one.
Hillary campaign will need to round up some more women Trump tried to kiss...for the MSM to use.


The worst ones will come from women he held hands with in movie theaters !!




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: liammc

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: liammc

Double standards or what eh?


It's called track record.

You're supposed to believe Trump speculation, because it's more often been true.

Like him saying the N-word. It's probably true. On a more general level a lot of ignorant people have said that word though.
Clinton has a good track record?


No. But you're not supposed to inspect them individually. You compare track records side by side.

Most of Clintons scandals have been false. This is why it's not intuitive to believe the same sources about new scandals.

Like Trump saying the N-word. It's probably true. On a more general level a lot of ignorant people have said that word though. Obama's said it, I've said it in the midst of jokes. A lot of people have said it. What's particularly funny, is if you say Trumps has said it however, the true lapdogs come out and defend their lords honor, when it all likelihood, he's said it too.
edit on 14-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Other people handle and write Hillary's speeches with the focus-group precision and scrutiny of public relations and marketing, not truth and transparency:



Team, I've re-written this speech in light of today's Supreme Court ruling. Have tried to capture some of the feel of this day, with celebration in the morning and grief in the afternoon, and what it all means for the work we have to do in this country (and what's so wrong with the Republicans). See what you think.

Thanks Dan


Email 7518



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: liammc

Double standards or what eh?


It's called track record.

You're supposed to believe Trump speculation, because it's more often been true.

Like him saying the N-word. It's probably true. On a more general level a lot of ignorant people have said that word though. Obama's said it, I've said it in the midst of jokes. A lot of people have said it. What's particularly funny, is if you say Trumps has said it however, the true lapdogs come out and defend their lords honor.


We'll see.
Video of Hillary angrily yelling at a woman and using the 'N' word is supposed to come out soon from wikileaks---1 OF 6 new videos apparently joining the emails.




top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join